Return-Path: X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69913A0FDD for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzHyrd9viiSs for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAD523A0FDB for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com 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; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <3270C7FA-0902-4913-992F-7B046AEE12A3@oracle.com> 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-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org 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 --00000000000025f46d05a862b4c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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 >> >> >> >> --00000000000025f46d05a862b4c3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I am proposing that we hold a short (maximum=C2=A0of = one hour) discussion=C2=A0
> about directory scalabity=C2=A0issues i= n two weeks at 9AM PDT on 6/22.=C2=A0 Not=C2=A0
> sure if we w= ill need a webex.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If there are three participants or fewer, we = >=C2=A0willl=C2=A0probably get by with just a phone call.=C2=A0 Please l= et me know if=C2=A0you ar
> interested in attending and contri= buting.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Whatever is discussed will be=C2=A0
> pres= ented=C2=A0at the July interim meeting.

Are you OK= with the proposed time and format?

As nobody else= has proposed=C2=A0attending, I think we could address this with a simple p= hone call, and we can report on what=C2=A0we did and didn't decide at t= he 7/9 meeting.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:41 PM David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> 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.= =C2=A0 I need to hear from other people about their plans but my expectatio= n 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 mad= e at the previous virtual meeting.=C2=A0 I'll have some suggestions bel= ow about how we might use time.
  • Third priority will be for= other new work proposals.=C2=A0 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 lat= er virtual interim to be scheduled in September.

<= div dir=3D"ltr">

  • I don't exp= ect=C2=A0us to hear anything new about integrity measurement but will sched= ule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
There has been some progress, but nothing I can discuss = in a public setting yet.



<= div>
I can restart work with what I have and present that during t= he interim meeting, unless you have a different thought.
<= /blockquote>

I think that's the best option.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0Even if I remembered my proposals for restrucuring, it getting kind o= f late to go through them now, given that we want ro get this document to t= he IESG this year.
<= div>

With rega= rd=C2=A0to follow-up=C2=A0discussion from new-work discussions last time:

Should there be an item in= this category to discuss the RDMA Flush document?

Good point.=C2=A0 There should be.=C2=A0 =C2=A0To= m might not have anything more to say, but even he doesn't, wE will nee= d an update from Magnus about how the necessary charter update process is g= oIng.
  • I think ther= e is a need for some=C2=A0sort of followup discussion regarding the directo= ry operation performance issues discussed=C2=A0last time.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Due t= o lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory la= youts.=C2=A0 =C2=A0
With regard to directory delegation, it = appears that a significant issue in is non-implementation is Chuck's be= lief (possibly shared by others) that any change to a directory, requires r= efetching the entire directory.=C2=A0 I think this is incorrect and makes d= irectory notification=C2=A0essentially useless.=C2=A0 =C2=A0We might resolv= e this on the mailing list and I will send an email about the issue in the = next few weeks.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If there needs to be further discussion=C2=A0of= this issue, we will need=C2=A05-10 minutes of meeting time.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0

I want to follow up on Chuck's speculation of proto= col help for rm -r and would also like to discuss similar possible extensio= ns usable for build apllications.

With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on di= rectory caching , we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we= will want=C2=A0to say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.
<= /div>




<= div>To get the notice requirement out of way:

I am proposing that we hold a short (maximum=C2=A0o= f one hour) discussion about directory scalabity=C2=A0issues in two weeks a= t 9AM PDT on 6/22.=C2=A0 Not sure if we will need a webex.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If t= here are three participants or fewer, we willl=C2=A0probably get by with ju= st a phone call.=C2=A0 Please let me know if=C2=A0you are interested in att= ending and contributing.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Whatever is discussed will be presente= d=C2=A0at the July interim meeting.

--
Chuck Lever



--00000000000025f46d05a862b4c3--