[nfsv4] Comments on minutes of wg meeting at IETF114

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> BIS document will be discussed on the mailing list.

Good idea.  Since it hasn't been done yet, I wil have to start the
discussion.  See below.

Chuck Lever         20m  RDMA.     RPC-over-RDMA

> Major concern is lack of security in the protocol.

We need to address this.

David Black wonders what is practical to implement.

In any case, we need to provide a protocol.

>Tom Talpey and David Black think QUIC would be straightforward - suggest
avoiding TLS for RDMA.

No problem with this on my part.

> Richard S wants a security standard protocol.

No sure what this means.

> Christoph believes security and performance can co-exist.

I agree.

> Perhaps a new WG to explore extensions to both NFS and RDMA?

I don't see the point.   We have an NFSv4 working group and it has
successfully done RDMA-related protocol work.

> Chuck believes urgency of v2 is less than it used to be.

I agree if security is addressed otherwise.

> Should we let this work expire?

I agree it is not urgent but that doesn't means it is useless.

>Tom Talpey agrees to let the document sit as a reference.

Not sure how to work this out.

Tom
Haynes       10m  Open.      Issues found with Open and Delegation

> No objection to moving document into Last Call

There certainly should have been an objection since was essentially the -00
submitted years ago.

I can't imagine a -00 being immediately ready for WGLC.   Miracles like
that almost never happen.

> and assigning a document shepherd.

Any volunteers?

> Tom Talpey asked is there is more interest in (server) implementations

There probably isn't.

> but no objection.

Tom Haynes.       15m. Layout.    How can clients recover open files when
there are outstanding errors?

Not sure what errors are being referred to.

> Perhaps make this a convention.

Or implementation advice if you can't manage a standard.

> Tom to frame the question and proposal to WG alias in next two weeks.

Like to see this soon.

All           20m WG          What is the Roadmap of the WG?

What are the priorities, the resources available? - Brian

> Focus on smaller documents over the larger work (the BIS). - David Black,
Brian, others

I am working on the bis and the associated documents (internationalization,
security).   I don't see that changing.

> How are errata being addressed? – Zahed

I'm doing them in the bis drafts,

> Are the BIS taking care of the errata?

Yes.

Brian: We just gotta scrub the errata list.

Do not agree.

> Which errata do we not care about anymore?

Trying to make this decision sounds like it will take more time than simply
addressing them.   Lots have been addressed already in my bis individual
draft.

> Richard wants us to take the RFC5661BIS document into the WG.

OK with me.

> Chuck points out this is difficult as the document has been split into
multiple documents.

There are two sort of splits to consider:

   - The splitting off of material that applies to all minor versions.

This has already been done and is already reflected in my rf5661bis
individual draft


   - The splitting of the remaining material into 8 separate rfc's to keep
   document size down.

The big work here is resolving and maintaining inter-document references,
which is complicated  and labor-intensive without tool support.

To summarize the state of documents associated with the 5661bis effort:

   - draft-ietf-nfsv4-internationalization-02 has just been submitted.  I
   think it is essentially done.
   - I'm working on draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-05 but have been stymied
   by the abandonment of draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-pseudoflavors which I had
   reworked my document to reference.

Chuck has informed me that a wg decision was made to abandon this document
but that does not appear in the minutes.  In any case, I need either this
document or some replacement to proceed with security-05


   - I have an individual draft of rfc5661bis and could get it ready for wg
   adoption if there is no need for further document split-up.


> Zahed questions whether we had an adoption call for the BIS document?

I guess not.   The issue is complicated by current plans for document
split-up.

> David Black asks whether we should continue the split work on the BIS?

I think we should limit it to the splits already done.

> Tom Talpey asks if the Charter is up to date?

I think so.   If Tom thinks otherwise, we should explore possible changes
suggested by Tom or any other WG member.