Re: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After

David Noveck <> Thu, 18 June 2020 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69913A0FDD for <>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzHyrd9viiSs for <>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAD523A0FDB for <>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m21so5975602eds.13 for <>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LTVXY4buFFbjWfZEtt8EyFcWWRk65F1KVF8M1OFvcCs=; b=GS9hVrO6c6xn90OS/cjPlt3DqVx9osA+opGiRFGCjBx5TNMbeyUjIh0VFbA4Oii2EY 5BFZw73YeGhrOb4cMUUxZMMbS2ESS8fuJ4a6fveIJVIb4OKSsETBRHnDNafUGEW3MFS+ NIOLVEtzpcVFATBIebTARzFaftrxMttJOkD9+pEoRWNq6M4AzaybSdrfOTKSvM/3GuiA BZ7WaCj3url0BoTOnI23rcyFAD5GpNcPyIQTjCIIYc+NRslsLLjYNEGndvIzS5sq3Ns8 FxQ8bgQNxIkT5Ojm3JGimnS/P3IY0hUQ4B1F9MywAqiVxzaFX0U20cwLI4EVP2YS+QZq HTzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LTVXY4buFFbjWfZEtt8EyFcWWRk65F1KVF8M1OFvcCs=; b=G+Q1np2vo2RbGv9wDCHybWo/Kx+sQK2bdtO7P6TdYODyLBgbNuaYtg3WzNE57tzT89 rs54wFWDEbbBaIBZdugeliomrt75biz9R7nxySHYZqm3LGg4gBU5xJnIDJC9+YwhnGEl iPBYjRBuV2VtRdN+TkNkqsksT4dOYZiUqssSkut6ync1pWzsk0pO0FiSL2kYFN5h+i7Y eJekwiE7NS+dpYJs+wxxiCPAY+XziLA27WoUq3S3p3YNfzH2zJYFdXpghBqq2eqiEmKM 6OyZKgT41UkJ2Yeh87pDfhavWbk3VqzGzOoqwDyyF3ECN3gamoRi86zcyho65ZJ5mFxK V7zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WwWumGk9UYDtoszY4/p0F5EO74JV695VQjdxPeB3Sgrw7GyoU 3bV0GyZMK6OfFbkxdCRZ9SlchZAylfjHXWJtljY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7I7wdIh669/B1mYXsjiKSbWsDSh43HeYgIpT8OP9Ie+eX9n7a2AsIw5ZRB45BVcP+XsuK7PW5cwJ7XSeTBf0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1714:: with SMTP id y20mr259215edu.81.1592516766199; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:45:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Chuck Lever <>
Cc: NFSv4 <>, Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025f46d05a862b4c3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:46:10 -0000

> 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 <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM Chuck Lever <>
> 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