IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] IETF 99 Final Agenda

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Fri, 30 June 2017 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.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 10BE0129B7E for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xOuclONbCjgY for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA4412EAA6 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v5UJndF2025997 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 19:49:40 GMT
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v5UJnd7V003190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 19:49:39 GMT
Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v5UJndLG020620; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 19:49:39 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-171.1015granger.net (/68.46.169.226) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:49:39 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jd6oZt35AoMnDn7vsfDLfHsf_sKVRLCeRoKsO5iX-=fEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:49:36 -0400
Cc: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C3F56F7F-F8AA-4F38-84BA-58440D20D150@oracle.com>
References: <149826298961.7734.3057742069441559001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFt6Ba=bZ_MeJppziTpQaEfzReDQo9SwdoZXfsjkWsZg=Tjr_w@mail.gmail.com> <A1AA6DD9-92AB-42AC-B751-BE956D6A77BE@oracle.com> <CADaq8jd6oZt35AoMnDn7vsfDLfHsf_sKVRLCeRoKsO5iX-=fEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/E1vxjEMaT6310TcmTxuUeIgr1Fw>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 99 Final Agenda
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: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 19:49:43 -0000

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:10 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 	• We had originally assumed that Chuck would take about 30 minutes to discuss next steps for RDMA.  Although Chuck agreed to cut this back to 20 minutes, saying he didn't think people wanted to hear him "drone on", I find Chuck's presentations interesting and wonder if perhaps Chuck's feeling about audience response to his presentation might be due to the fact that he kept turning back to look at the slides :-).  In any case, I expect there to be considerable discussion of this topic so feel that allocating 30 minutes would be prudent.

No objection to either 20 or 30 minutes.


--
Chuck Lever

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email