Re: [nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I didn't see an agenda for the working group meeting on the web.   Also,
the deadline for wg agenda submission has already passed (it was 7/15).
 This leaves Sorin and Tom uncertain about whether they will be able to
present in Montreal (or remotely if necessary).

In order to address this impasse, I'd like to propose that we base the
meeting (probably without a formal agenda) on the high-priority items that
Chuck and I came up with and sent out on July 1.  Since those only amount
to 95 minutes total, there should be time to allocate both Tom and Sorin 10
minutes each for their presentations.   In order for this to work, all
presenters, and whoever winds up chairing the meeting, will have to be
mindful of time constraints so that Sorin and Tom each get their time to
present.

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:24 PM spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Thanks everyone. I am vacation this week but will pull things together
> once I am back.
>
> Spencer
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:19 PM Tom Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I also asked for presentation time….
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2019, at 12:23 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Although we have decided to meet in Montreal, have a (two-hour) session
>> scheduled, and Chuck and I have sent lists of proposed topics to the group,
>> we need to get an agenda together for the meeting.   Chuck and I have
>> discussed what we feel are the high-priority topics for discusion at the
>> meeting.   I previously sent out an incomplete preliminary agenda.   Since
>> then, there have been a few updates, so I'm sending the updated list of
>> items.   In any case, we still need to hear from:
>>
>>    - Anyone who knows of additional high-priority items to be added the
>>    list.
>>    - Anyone who feels that we should *not *be talking about any of the
>>    items currently on the list
>>
>> It looks like there will be additional time available.   If people have
>> worthwhile items to discuss that are not high-priority, they should send
>> messages to the list and assess interest.   If there are too many to fit,
>> the working group can express its priorities.  If we still wind up with
>> available time when IETF105 rolls around, we can open up the meeting for
>> whatever people would like to bring up.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Agenda Bashing -- All -- 5 min..*
>>
>> *Current updates* *to NFSv4 spec -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*
>>
>> This will cover the following documents
>>
>>    - RFC8587 (*NFS Version 4.0 Trunking Update*): It makes sense to
>>    discuss this together with the document below since the trunking-related
>>    updates for both NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 are pretty much the same, even though
>>    one is cuurrently an RFC, while the other will probably not be when we meet.
>>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns (*Network File System (NFS)
>>    Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*): This provides updates to
>>    NFSv4.1 dealing with trunking and transparent state migration.  There will
>>    be a discussion regarding the state of the approval/publication process.
>>
>> *Review of Current Working group Milestones -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*
>>
>> This will cover all of our current miilestones.   In two cases, the
>> milestones gave already been achieved.
>>
>> There are six items that have not yet been achieved that still need to be
>> discussed:
>>
>>    - Submit final document describing use of NVMe in accessing a pNFS
>>    SCSI Layout (as Proposed Standard)
>>
>> No current document but still has working group interest. Probably should
>> not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.
>>
>>
>>    - Submit Final documents descibing NFSv4.1 trunking discovery and
>>    NFSv4.1 Transpaent state migration (two milestones neing addressed by one
>>    document)
>>
>> This is now addressed in the working group document, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
>> (*Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*):.
>> Discussed in detail in another talk.
>>
>>
>>    - Submit final document describing CM private data convention for
>>    RPC-over-RDMA version 1 (Informational)
>>
>> This is now a working group document draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data
>> (*RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1*).
>> It is on its way to IESG consideration.
>>
>>
>>    - Submit final document describing RDMA Layout for pNFS.
>>
>> No current document but still has working group interest. Possibly
>> should not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.
>>
>>
>>    - Submit final document defining RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 (as Proposed
>>    Standard)
>>
>> This is now an I-D, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two (*RPC-over-RMA
>> Version Two Protocol*). This will be discussed in one of the additional
>> talks.
>>
>> *RPC-TLS and related security work -- C.Lever -- 15 min.*
>>
>> This will be primarily focused on draft-etf-nfsv4-rpc-tls (*Remote
>> Procedure Call Encryption by Deafault)* but we also want to discuss the
>> potential need for other documents such as an NFSv4-focused document and
>> documents relating to QUIC.
>>
>> *Moving Forward on Integrity Measurement Draft -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*
>>
>> Time for discussion of the future of
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement (*Integrity Measurement for
>> Network File System version 4*) and possible objection/issues with that
>> draft.
>>
>> *RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*
>>
>> Discussion of current atatus and what is necessary to go forward with
>> this document.
>>
>> *Proposed Plans for rfc5661bis -- D. Noveck -- 15 min.*
>>
>> Will discuss updates that need to be done to provide a reasonably current
>> description of NFSv4.1.   The assumption is that the bis RFC document will
>> be based  on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update (*NFS Version 4.1
>> Update for Multi-Server Namespace*) coverted, as the IESG appears to
>> want, into a bis-like format but that the following additional changes
>> would need to be added:
>>
>>    - Updates to reflect the changes Tom made to pNFS mapping type
>>    requirements in RFC8434.
>>    - Changes to avoid the NFSv4.1 specification contradicting RFC8178.
>>    - A new internationalization section modeled on that in RFC7530
>>    - A new Security Considerations section that meets the requirements
>>    of RFC3552 and reflect the changes/advances made my the security work now
>>    underway.
>>    - Current erratta.
>>    - Anything else people think needs to be fixed in the NFSv4.1
>>    specification.
>>
>> We can also consider alternate plans to provide more current NFSv4.1
>> specification documents.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> I'd like to mention that, for those unable to be in Montreal on the week
>> of 7/20, remote participation will be available, even for people who want
>> to present a talk.   Time zones can be a drag, but it is well worth
>> considering remote presentation if you have something you think the working
>> group needs to  hear.
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>