Re: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> 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 ar
> interested in attending and contributing.   Whatever is discussed will be
> presented at the July interim meeting.

Are you OK with the proposed time and format?

As nobody else has proposed attending, I think we could address this with a
simple phone call, and we can report on what we did and didn't decide at
the 7/9 meeting.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:41 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>