Re: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dave-
>
>
>
> As far as priority for meeting time:
>
>    - First priority will be for it's relating to the current working
>    group agenda, i. e. Things with current wg documents or milestones plus
>    things related to rfc5661bis.  I need to hear from other people about their
>    plans but my expectation is that this stuff is unlikely to take more than
>    an hour. For my thoughts about use of this time, see below
>
>
>    - Second priority will be for follow-up discussion of new work
>    proposals made at the previous virtual meeting.  I'll have some suggestions
>    below about how we might use time.
>
>
>    - Third priority will be for other new work proposals.  Unsure if
>    there will be any time for these so I expect that any of these that don't
>    fit will be deferred to a later virtual interim to be scheduled in
>    September.
>
>
>
>
>    - I don't expect us to hear anything new about integrity measurement
>    but will schedule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
>
> There has been some progress, but nothing I can discuss in a public
> setting yet.
>

I'm guessing that it's unlikely that there willbe progress in the next few
weeks.

I hope we will be able to discuss this in September.  Let us know if there
is progresss you can talk about.

>
>    - I am anticipating some sort of update for rpc-over-RDMA version two
>    and am assuming, for planning purposes, about ten minutes.  I need an
>    update from check in the next few weeks so I can put an agenda together.
>
> You mentioned a while back you had some input for me regarding
> restructuring of the header types, so I stopped working on that document
> temporarily, but that has turned into a lengthy hiatus.
>

Sorry I dropped the ball on that.


> I can restart work with what I have and present that during the interim
> meeting, unless you have a different thought.
>

I think that's the best option.   Even if I remembered my proposals for
restrucuring, it getting kind of late to go through them now, given that we
want ro get this document to the IESG this year.

>
> With regard to follow-up discussion from new-work discussions last time:
>
>
> Should there be an item in this category to discuss the RDMA Flush
> document?
>
> Good point.  There should be.   Tom might not have anything more to say,
but even he doesn't, wE will need an update from Magnus about how the
necessary charter update process is goIng.

>
>    - I think there is a need for some sort of followup discussion
>    regarding the directory operation performance issues discussed last time.
>     Due to lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory
>    layouts.
>
> With regard to directory delegation, it appears that a significant issue
> in is non-implementation is Chuck's belief (possibly shared by others) that
> any change to a directory, requires refetching the entire directory.  I
> think this is incorrect and makes directory notification essentially
> useless.   We might resolve this on the mailing list and I will send an
> email about the issue in the next few weeks.   If there needs to be further
> discussion of this issue, we will need 5-10 minutes of meeting time.
>
>
> I want to follow up on Chuck's speculation of protocol help for rm -r and
> would also like to discuss similar possible extensions usable for build
> apllications.
>
> With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on directory caching
> , we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we will want to
> say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.
>
>
> Perhaps we could move this topic to one or two separate design calls that
> focus specifically on collecting and refining ideas about directory
> scalability. A separate series of calls would allow more time for
> discussion -- and could begin sooner than July.
>

OK, but I think with this will count, in some sense as a virual interim,
with notice requirements (and probably minutes of some sort).

I think we wll need 5 minutes (being liberal about it) in the July meeting
to report to the working group about what was and wasn't decided.

To get the notice requirement out of way:

I am proposing that we hold a short (maximum of one hour) discussion about
directory scalabity issues in two weeks at 9AM PDT on 6/22.  Not sure if we
will need a webex.   If there are three participants or fewer, we
willl probably get by with just a phone call.  Please let me know if you
are interested in attending and contributing.   Whatever is discussed will
be presented at the July interim meeting.


>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>