Re: [nfsv4] IETF 105 - Montreal - NFSv4 WG meeting ?

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I agree that we should discuss integrity measurement face to face.  It
seems that some of the issues with this could go round  and round
indefinitely on the mailing list, without making much progress.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 17:04 Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From my list:
>
> - Milestone updates (fs_locations and related, RPC/RDMA)
> - Towards a set of Working Group github repositories
> - Improving the performance of NFS directory operations
> - An emerging Computational Storage architecture for NFS
> - Long-term strategies for RPC over encrypted transports
> - Replacing RFC 5661
> - Open issues with integrity measurement
>
> The directory performance and computational storage topics are
> not mature and can be considered low priority for this meeting.
>
> The others intersect with your suggestions except for the
> integrity measurement topic, which I would like to keep on the
> agenda for now.
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 2019, at 4:56 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I can't see us not meeting given that the last time we met was at
> IETF102 and that we are in the midst of major effort to move NFSv4 security
> from its current unsatisfactory state to something better.
> >
> > With regard to filling up a timeslot, I'll let Check and Trond (who, as
> I undertand it wil be working on a v4-specific document to go with Chuck's
> RPC-generic one) define their agenda items.
> >
> > With regard to my own needs, we will need to discuss work on a possible
> rfc5661bis.   It is now pretty clear that the IESG will want to see this.
> The only question is whether they will be OK with publishing
> rfc5661-msns-update soon.   Even if they are, there will be a need for an
> rfc5661bis that includes a new Security Considerations section (with a real
> threat analysis) and that will have to be co-ordinated with Trond and Chuck.
> >
> > I know Tom thinks I'm crazy to even consider this, but, so far as I
> know, there is no working group consensus on this point :-)
> >
> > Also, there are there are a number of documets with target dates in the
> second half of 2019., that we need to briefly discuss.  Given the securitty
> work  underway, I don't see any need to add any non-security milestones for
> 2020 right now.
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 4:07 PM spencer shepler <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> The WG/BOF scheduling is open.
> >>
> >> Does the working group have the topics/agenda items necessary to meet
> face to face?
> >>
> >> Spencer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfsv4 mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>