Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis

Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 17:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5DEA8DB993B81040A21CF3CB332489F6042E914702@MX31A.corp.emc.com>
References: <039D3CB813A4D544863BB7D4F46A1857306DB779@TK5EX14MBXC254.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5DEA8DB993B81040A21CF3CB332489F6042E914702@MX31A.corp.emc.com>
From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:37:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CAEMWVhuXQTXvW4ZGwWtUop2m6bb2pKNaKbHbeaFumFrn_YDRHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Noveck, David" <david.noveck@emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "welch@panasas.com" <welch@panasas.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis
Precedence: list

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Noveck, David <david.noveck@emc.com> wrote:
> IIRC, there was some discussion of moving this to last-call and I was asked
> to provide a review.  I could dig that up if anybody is interested.  The
> last I heard was that my comments would be responded to, but I’ve heard
> nothing since then.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that there is no interest  in continuing this and those
> who were interested in this are now interested in doing what I call the
> son-of-pNFS-object work instead.   Can people who really know tell me
> whether I’m right?

Speaking for Tonian only - we are indeed focusing on the flexible files layout
(what you call the son-of-pNFS-object).

Based on the discussions we had in the IETF 85 meeting, there was not enough
(and committed) interest in supporting T-10 OSD in the new layout I proposed
but rather define it as an evolutionary  progression of the files-layout, adding
the flexibility of a per-file layout and RAID support over
NFS-attached Data Servers.
Hence I essentially forked it off of pnfs-object and that will be
clear in the new I-D
I'm planning to submit.

>
>
>
> It appears that the administrative/charter side of things has not kept pace
> with the technical  interests of working group participants.    Clearly
> that’s an undesirable situation, but I have no idea how it would be best
> rectified.
>
>
>
> Assuming I’m right, it would be a shame if the following sort of argument
> prevailed:
>
> ·         How can we discuss  yet a new mapping type when we have this
> 56664bis stuff hanging fire?

The new layout proposal is going to be independent of rfc5664(bis).

>
> ·         If there is no energy to do the latter, how can the working group
> do the former?

ditto.

Benny

>
>
>
> The relevant points are that sometimes people make mistakes and also that
> circumstances change and make previous decisions, even those made by rough
> consensus, incorrect in retrospect.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Spencer Shepler
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:46 AM
> To: bhalevy@tonian.com; Boaz Harrosh (bharrosh@panasas.com);
> welch@panasas.com
>
>
> Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
> Subject: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> The following bis document expired 8 months ago and is part of the working
> group’s charter.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5664bis-01.txt
>
>
>
> Please provide a timeline for updates or an opinion that the work should be
> removed from the charter and the WG’s milestones.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>

[nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Spencer Shepler
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Welch, Brent
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Spencer Shepler
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Noveck, David
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Spencer Shepler
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis Benny Halevy
Re: [nfsv4] status and next steps for RFC5664bis … Benny Halevy