Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion, close at IETF99
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 14:05 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804A1129AAA for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCmHAynbAZpG for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A231296B3 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p73so92607599ywp.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wQs6ewDHmPK82ccDue/PAzcOk381MZSzUV7pcWMir1o=; b=d0oVnuZdJjUOYMedRD6GAmoxq0L4T7e8g/ojmscXG9WKkxJ58lKIQzGTfX0vxIG2E9 fS2muLkJKwnZze/q4ziRfrvHC9fCLxluD+/ieteFbeJjr+MdRcxD9+LDUlYE1sESUALt sLqo+AhRGbl0Q+UnQ3PPxfHy75HNShhf2CF0FDx5f9VwdM/NzbAQH/cqgeIiePexBMMa TxfH8d4GmUj0110n+1qciKzLHYtHmvgqYv2m3cfH8sT3TJ5qbDAYDxVe+v9MweFU4jtZ G/WHifY56W3rTabIl8I2tIP8XLNTq812ZRj49NZT5ad5FLFpF2zXO6Ortvxj71wEUV79 x4WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wQs6ewDHmPK82ccDue/PAzcOk381MZSzUV7pcWMir1o=; b=oj/QYIcLfZCzI+TZnLOCMDtDhSBA9GVEarEyeWkzzc5iwPteR8SVowC0HXu/QxyfVM Fdahd1Np1trXuOKXEJfMq8wLq6eXuGkSOgzvNKcejA5gwNTj2vnGyAmvPfW0QPH9bNHT Xyy1b4XFH/Q1x5uNYceo8S2XmSXOU3H+Z11q8SNfqYrjyrQ3HvEAmN603/mJ0S9PCd7b 4xnfNoKb2UfCh9yryDEldFYO4bEyoyEvTCIWVgvoGIp/Q56Nn44f3FRUX6+qkeKuTW2g wbl2YcAIc3Dl2ctBDu8yphUloCblol7m+kBkmKG+dbEKer/AEttOOdp0R58510pfDXn2 LCkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBcN608ZpQewplZRmsUz5png/WihyIb4z15aKL+hq4RMNNJ6R5P 5Mg/xLLQny027gPNOXPw0wkA/DH/rA==
X-Received: by 10.129.70.195 with SMTP id t186mr15375661ywa.21.1495721123842; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.162.36 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 07:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jfnkk04ZDgT2LZwBXnO68R6W6C3GQ_sqNyVMvGorxz-hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFt6BamV4w6+zNQRCgvsM+MXHE35HYpjmoEmwM05DeG6XQwVog@mail.gmail.com> <4332475259118046202@unknownmsgid> <CADaq8jf8t-J4fK8bc19XQNECzufiLACmV5m83vRSgCGPh5k66g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BamjPJANH1YJ6OPa5_LM_XPSJEX=nwFfnhPWVoVLbLyJbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jdM_Dca4dDyFRQfGt-Mc=Jkj2CPbFW2QiTFvXjQFxO3bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BamVPA-WBDi-R0rf==UYZn-ZTDk=JPdHvCC920wYkRpX9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jfnkk04ZDgT2LZwBXnO68R6W6C3GQ_sqNyVMvGorxz-hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:05:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eXHeNBrshUdXnLLXNZyikPnJF9vYhm20czzFwefdM7+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Brian Pawlowski <beepy@purestorage.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c7f144510a2055059b648"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/BY4gT--ibctL7VZP7PkzsCqDvP8>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion, close at IETF99
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:05:29 -0000
So, three things ... Giving me a draft charter that you folks can live with (or even two draft charters that you can live with) is a good plan. For the record, I consider you folks one of my better working groups - you produce clear and clean drafts that tend to solve real problems and get deployed. Please remember that "Evil Spencer" is now an anycast address :p Thanks, Spencer (D) On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:10 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would suggest we look to the TCPM WG charter as a model for what is > done with the NFSV4 WG charter update. > See https://datatracker.ietf.o > rg/wg/tcpm/about/ > > Each working group is different and I would prefer a charter based on what > we have been doing and what we expect to do in the near future. That's > what I tried to do in my draft. > > > We also need direction from Spencer D. as our area director for general > guidance on what he and the broader IESG would like to see for a group that > has existed for 20 years. > > I would like to hear Spencer D's views on the charter. I think the best > way to do that is to give him a draft to comment on, or two if you prefer. > > > While you believe otherwise, my suggestions are not meant to impede > progress > > of desired work items. > > I don't understand the motivations for your suggestions, or why you think > that you > know what I believe. > > Although I have heard suggestions that you are deliberately impeding > progress, I've > never believed them. If you wanted to impede progress you would have a > very constraining > charter and you would enforce it strictly. Yet we have published RFCs > 7931 and 8K > and still there is no Evil Spencer saying "outside the charter" :-). > > > What I am suggesting is that we be clear to ourselves that the protocols > and > > working group are generally in maintenance mode. > > I agree with that, but the issue is the type and scope of that > maintenance. > > > Yes, there are new features and additions that are desired and that work > can fall > > into the charter. > > Exactly so. That is what I tried to describe in the extension section of > my draft. IIRC, > you objected to that and did not offer a replacement. If you have a > suggested replacement, > we can consider it. > > > For example, the TCPM charter uses this language: > > > "* The WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues (e.g., bug fixes) and > > modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and interfaces that > > maintain TCP's utility. > > While this is closer to what have been doing than the current charter in > that it is not limited to editorial changes, it is not a good fit because > of the differences in what the groups do. TCP specifies detailed > implementation algorithms including those for congestion control discussed > in a part of the charter you don't quote. We don't do that, for good > reason and we have to deal with changing file system semantics such as we > did with the xattrs work. Whether it is "modest" or not is a matter of > opinion, but there is nothing in TCP with which it is analogous. > > > * The WG is a venue for moving current TCP specifications along the > > standards track (as community energy is available for such efforts)." > > I don't see how this relates to our group. > > > I believe this captures the behavior that the NFSv4 WG has had for some > > > time (albeit some of the work items have been slightly larger but with > the > > > versioning I-Ds this should be less the case as intended). > > I think my draft did it better, which is no surprise since I was > describing our group rather than the TCPM group. > > Again, if you think I'm wrong, propose an update to my draft or your own > draft for our WG. Let the working group and Spencer D comment. > > Perhaps I'm immodest, but while RFC7931 and versioning work were > maintenance, I don't consider either of them 'modest" changes. Creating a > new extension model was a significant change even though the goal was a > more suitable approach to maintenance. RFC 7931 moved v4.0 from a protocol > to which trunking was an alien concept to one in which it was an integral > part of the protocol. The motivation was to fix a problem but it marked a > major advnce for NFSv4.0. It was a good thing the Evil Spencer was not > paying attention :-). > > > Finally in the TCPM charter is the following: > > > "New TCPM milestones that fall within the scope specified within the > > charter can be added after consensus on acceptance in the working > > group and approval by the responsible Area Director." > > I wouldn't have a problem adding something like this to the next > iteration, although personally I'd prefer to just ignore the whole > milestone thing as we have been doing these last few years. > > > This seems reasonable. > > It is reasonable if the AD is reasonable. That's the case now but it has > not always been so. > > > This way we don't have to recharter completely to add milestones but we > are communicating timeline and work with > the involvement of the AD. We > don't surprise our AD and if they have questions about charter scope there > is an > opportunity to express it earlier than later. > > I can live with it. > > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:29 PM, spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> David, >> >> I would suggest we look to the TCPM WG charter as a model for what is >> done with the NFSV4 WG charter update. See https://datatracker.ietf.o >> rg/wg/tcpm/about/ >> >> We also need direction from Spencer D. as our area director for general >> guidance on what he and the broader IESG would like to see for a group that >> has existed for 20 years. >> >> While you believe otherwise, my suggestions are not meant to impede >> progress of desired work items. What I am suggesting is that we be clear >> to ourselves that the protocols and working group are generally in >> maintenance mode. Yes, there are new features and additions that are >> desired and that work can fall into the charter. For example, the TCPM >> charter uses this language: >> >> "* The WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues (e.g., bug fixes) and >> modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and interfaces that >> maintain TCP's utility. >> >> * The WG is a venue for moving current TCP specifications along the >> standards track (as community energy is available for such efforts)." >> >> >> I believe this captures the behavior that the NFSv4 WG has had for some >> time (albeit some of the work items have been slightly larger but with the >> versioning I-Ds this should be less the case as intended). >> >> Finally in the TCPM charter is the following: >> >> "New TCPM milestones that fall within the scope specified within the >> charter can be added after consensus on acceptance in the working >> group and approval by the responsible Area Director." >> >> This seems reasonable. This way we don't have to recharter completely to >> add milestones but we are communicating timeline and work with the >> involvement of the AD. We don't surprise our AD and if they have questions >> about charter scope there is an opportunity to express it earlier than >> later. >> >> Spencer >> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:11 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > For the extension and performance items, I believe they are too broad >>> for the WG charter. >>> >>> Obviously I disagree. Note that my charter draft was intended to >>> encompass the work that the working group has been doing over the last few >>> years even if it is out of scope according to the existing charter. >>> >>> > For the charter, outside of maintenance items (bis and other related >>> work), it would be best to have work items that are better defined. >>> >>> True, but we are where we are. There were some things that were quite >>> well-defined but did not work out so well (e.g. fedFS), and some important >>> needs that we have to address even though the specific means by which they >>> will be met is not yet certain. That is what the process of discussion is >>> for. >>> >>> > If that definition doesn't exist, then the WG can be a place that the >>> ideas can be refined through personal drafts >>> >>> >>> That has been happening. versioning, umask and xattrs were defined in >>> personal drafts and then were adopted as working group items, the fact that >>> they were outside our charter notwithstanding. I think it would be better >>> to have a charter that includes the things we have been doing and expect to >>> do. >>> >>> > and when ready the WG can work with the AD for a charter update, etc. >>> >>> It sounds like you are proposing a further delay in updating the >>> charter. This is already over a year overdue. I think it is well accepted >>> that we need a new charter and I will continue, with others' help, to work >>> on that. If you have a counter-proposal, we can discuss it in Prague and >>> try to come to some agreement. >>> >>> > Performance especially difficult because the range of work items can >>> be very broad and there may not be consensus with respect to approach, etc. >>> -- >>> >>> It can be and there might not be consensus, but, as my charter draft >>> suggests, deciding the most promising avenues to develop is something that >>> needs to be done. We may fail in doing that but if we put this work >>> outside of the working group's charter we guarantee failure, and he >>> consequence will be irrelevance for NFSv4. >>> >>> > the pre-discussion of proposed extensions or changes can capture that >>> performance is the use case and then build towards specific proposals. >>> >>> >>> I think we have specific proposals motivated by performance issues. For >>> example, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two is a specific proposal >>> which the working group might reasonably adopt at some point. But that >>> discussion needs to happen but we should not foreclose the result by >>> placing this document outside the working group charter. >>> >>> The work on NVMe and RDMA-based layouts is not as far along but I expect >>> Christoph will have proposals to make to the working group at IETF-99. >>> Even if we just have slideware in July, there will be a basis for an >>> initial discussion about the best way forward. That discussion is an >>> important part of the working group's work and the charter should make >>> provision for it. >>> >>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:18 PM, spencer shepler < >>> spencer.shepler@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> For the extension and performance items, I believe they are too broad >>>> for the WG charter. >>>> >>>> For the charter, outside of maintenance items (bis and other related >>>> work), it would be best to have work items that are better defined. If >>>> that definition doesn't exist, then the WG can be a place that the ideas >>>> can be refined through personal drafts and when ready the WG can work with >>>> the AD for a charter update, etc. >>>> >>>> Performance especially difficult because the range of work items can be >>>> very broad and there may not be consensus with respect to approach, etc. -- >>>> the pre-discussion of proposed extensions or changes can capture that >>>> performance is the use case and then build towards specific proposals. >>>> >>>> Spencer >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:31 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Spencer wrote: >>>>> > Hi. It is time that we update our charter >>>>> >>>>> Yes we need to update the charter. >>>>> >>>>> > to determine what is next for the working group. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see us making a big decision like that in Prague. >>>>> >>>>> I expect us to continue the kind of work we have been doing, with >>>>> the charter updated to include it >>>>> >>>>> > Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email. >>>>> >>>>> He nudged back. It appears you guys have two different conceptions >>>>> of what "take that on" means and I'm not prepared to referee. >>>>> >>>>> > In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure we'll do that >>>>> >>>>> Beepy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Let's whack it on email >>>>> >>>>> I've tried to begin the whacking process below. Comments and >>>>> alternate proposed drafts are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> > and then put on agenda for fine tuning at Prague. >>>>> >>>>> We can discuss this in Prague, if we have time., but we are not going >>>>> to come up with a final text in a half-hour or even two hours. >>>>> >>>>> I think the goal for the Prague discussion has to be confirmation of >>>>> an agreement on an outline previously agreed upon and a time line for >>>>> submission of the new charter. After that it is up to you and the >>>>> Spencers to make it happen. >>>>> >>>>> Draft Charter for Working Group (Ready for further whacking) >>>>> >>>>> NFS Version 4 is the IETF standard for file sharing. To maintain NFS >>>>> Version 4's utility and currency, the working group is chartered to >>>>> maintain the existing NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, NFSv4.2, Federated Namespace, and >>>>> related specifications. In addition, extensions will be developed, as >>>>> necessary, to correct problems with the protocols as currently specified, >>>>> to accommodate needed file system semantics, and to make significant >>>>> performance improvements. Finally, deployment guidance will be collected >>>>> for deployments of the NFSv4 FedFS implementations and their interaction >>>>> with integration with new user authentication models. >>>>> >>>>> *Maintenance* >>>>> >>>>> The working group has found that as NFSv4 implementations mature and >>>>> deployments continue, clarifications to existing RFCs are needed. These >>>>> clarifications assist vendors in delivering quality and interoperable >>>>> implementations. The working group is chartered with the vetting of the >>>>> issues and determining correctness of submitted errata. In addition, some >>>>> areas may need more concentrated work to correct the specifications >>>>> already published or to deal with unanticipated interactions between >>>>> features In the cases in which required changes are inappropriate for the >>>>> errata system, the working group will assist in publication of best >>>>> practices RFCs or of RFCs that provide editorial modification or >>>>> technical updates to original RFCs. >>>>> >>>>> *Extension* >>>>> >>>>> The NFSv4 protocol is designed to allow extension by the addition of >>>>> new operations or new attributes, the creation of minor versions, and the >>>>> definition of new pNFS mapping types. The working group will discuss >>>>> proposals for such extensions and assure they have adequate technical >>>>> review including discussion of their interaction with existing features >>>>> before adopting them as working group items and helping to draft >>>>> specification documents. >>>>> >>>>> *Performance Challenges* >>>>> >>>>> The increase of network bandwidths and the reduction of latencies >>>>> associated with network traffic and access to persistent storage have >>>>> created challenges for remote file access protocols which need to meet >>>>> increasingly demanding performance expectations. Some work already done in >>>>> this area includes the respecification of RPC-over-RDMA Version One and the >>>>> pNFS SCSI layout. It is likely that further work in this area will be >>>>> required. This might take the form of further RPC-over-RDMA versions, >>>>> adaptation of the SCSI layout to NVMe, or the development of an >>>>> RDMA-oriented pNFS layout. The working group needs to discuss these >>>>> alternatives, and possibly others, and develop the most promising ones. >>>>> >>>>> *RFC5664bis* >>>>> >>>>> Propose that this be terminated with extreme prejudice >>>>> >>>>> *NFSv4.2* >>>>> >>>>> This is already done so it might as well be whacked. >>>>> >>>>> *NFSv4 Multi-Domain Access for FedFS* >>>>> >>>>> A lot has happened in this area but there is probably work still to be >>>>> done. My suggestion is that Andy propose a replacement section, if >>>>> necessary >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Brian Pawlowski <beepy@purestorage.com >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the current charter: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charter/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's whack it on email and then put on agenda for fine tuning at >>>>>> Prague. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our AD will weigh in on what is appropriate. Last time we did this I >>>>>> believe we focused on things actively being worked on (staffed) with some >>>>>> agreement rather than creating new work items that had not been yet >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> >>>>>> beepy >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 8, 2017, at 12:30 PM, spencer shepler < >>>>>> spencer.shepler@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. It is time that we update our charter to determine what is next >>>>>> for the working group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items. >>>>>> >>>>>> Spencer >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nfsv4 mailing list >>>>>> nfsv4@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> nfsv4 mailing list >>>>>> nfsv4@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion, clo… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… Brian Pawlowski
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion,… Spencer Dawkins at IETF