Re: [nfsv4] NFSv4 WG meeting in Berlin?

I'm going to first respond to Chuck's list and then add a few items of my
own:

> - progress report on RFC 5666bis and bidirectional
>   RPC-over-RDMA, and review of final steps.

In the past, when I've proposed discussing things like this, I've been
accused of "status-mongering".

Nevertheless, I think we could afford some time to keep the working group
up-to-date about the process of going from wg consensus to a published
RFC.  We need more transparency in this area.

BTW, v4.2 entered WGLC over a year ago, and I don't understand why this has
taken so long.

> - progress report on RFC 5667bis, which should be open by
>   then, and discussion of direction for this work

I want this discussion to happen.  In particular we need working group
discussion of the RPC-over-RDMA implications/choices of READ_PLUS.

> - discussion of items related to RPC-over-RDMA Version One
>   follow-on work, including:

>   + RPC-over-RDMA Version Two

I agree that this should be discussed.

>    + draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtissues-00

Will be able to talk about this.  There's a good chance, I'll also be able
to talk about a draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtrext-00.  I think I have
until late June to submit this,
so there is a goo chance I'll be abl to tlk about it.

>   + draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-xcharext-00

Will be able to talk about this.

>   + Priorities for work on optional features

This a useful discussion to have but I don't think we should expect to make
decisions in this area.

> - proposals related to pNFS block and NVMe/F

I definitely want to hear about this.

> - proposals related to NFS-over-RDMA and remote persistent
>   memory

Not sure exactly what is going to be proposed but it sounds like an
interesting area.

Most of the things I would add to Chuck's list have to do with the NFSv4
extension area.

I think we need to close on a decision on the future of
draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning and the related question of how it affects our
nfsv4 extension practices going forward.  There are a number of people with
different opinions in this area and the working group would be better off
 if we were able to move closer to agreement with regard to this area,
specially since, as Spencer pointed out during our conference call, getting
agreement on this could hold up adjusting the charter which is now
unfortunately out-of-date.

I have a mixture of items I can talk about and want to hear about.  I don't
expect people having much difficulty figuring out which is which:

   - I need to give a presentation following up on the comments that I got
   on the conference call.  While I'm prepared to make large parts of what is
   in the current document informational, there is a core of items that need
   to be standards-track, if only to contradict the existing standards track
   treatment of versioning which has no place for anything other than the
   minor version model.  As I've never heard anyone who is satisfied with the
   current model, I assume the working group wants some change and so we need
   to have a discussion that leads to progress in this area.
   - If there is anyone who favors the minor version model, we should give
   them an opportunity to argue for their position.
   - I think we need to hear from the authors of draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask an
   rft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs about their plans to move their documents forward.
   - If there is anyone who has a relatively large extension in mind, I
   hope they can present an outline to help us decide how hard we should work
   to keep the minor version model still available.

During the discussion of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-biirection, it appeared
that there are a number of people who are interested in a level of
bidirection support beyond what is necessary to support nfsv4.x for 0 <= x
<=2.  I'd be interested in hearing from those people if possible,both
because of the inherent interest of their proposed features and also to
help start thinking about how we would deal with co-ordinating extensions
to multiple extensible protocols.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 2, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Spencer Shepler <sshepler@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Working Group scheduling has opened for Berlin.
> >
> > From the dates to know section of the meeting our request is due June
> 3rd….
> >
> > 2016-06-03 (Friday): Cut-off date for requests to schedule Working Group
> meetings
> >
> > If we want to meet, I propose that we have a draft working group agenda
> pulled together by May 20th.
> >
> > Therefore, please submit agenda items, etc. before then.
>
> I can propose a number of topics related to NFS-over-RDMA.
> Any or all of these would be appropriate for a f2f
> discussion, depending on interest.
>
> - progress report on RFC 5666bis and bidirectional
>    RPC-over-RDMA, and review of final steps
>
> - progress report on RFC 5667bis, which should be open by
>    then, and discussion of direction for this work
>
> - discussion of items related to RPC-over-RDMA Version One
>    follow-on work, including:
>
>    + RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
>    + draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtissues-00
>    + draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-xcharext-00
>    + Priorities for work on optional features
>
> - proposals related to pNFS block and NVMe/F
>
> - proposals related to NFS-over-RDMA and remote persistent
>    memory
>
>
> > Also, if anyone has a proposal to change the decision date, please speak
> up.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>