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

[spencer shepler <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the feedback.  Meeting request has been submitted.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>