Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On May 21, 2018, at 9:34 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Go/No-go went by us on Friday. 
> 
> I had thought of Spencer's message as the as the Go/No-go (in this case Go).
> My interpretation was that he requested a meeting based on his judgment
> that there was a general feeling that we should meet.

Spencer said:
> I can cancel the meeting request if there is a lack of interest but we should make that decision soon (Monday or Tuesday at the latest).


Which I took to mean that his request was provisional and that
no decision on meeting had been confirmed.

But now we are "go" so let me propose some topics I can lead:

Integrity Management Architecture backgrounder
- 15 minutes. I will submit a WG document before July 2 that
replaces draft-cel-ietf-linux-seclabel-xtensions-00 with a
mechanism that uses OPTIONAL GETATTR attributes instead of
extending NFSv4 security labels.

Road map for completing draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 
- 10 minutes, should follow discussion of nfsv4-migration-update,
of course.

RPC/RDMA credit accounting round table
- 15 minutes. What needs to be fixed in RPC/RDMA credit
accounting?


> > I haven't heard any objections to meeting, 
> 
> Neither did  Spencer.
> 
> > and there does seem to be a substantive list of topics
> > we could discuss. 
> 
> We now have to turn that into a list of topics we will discuss and
> divvy up the meeting time.
> 
> > We appear to have enough energy behind meeting
> > in Montreal in July.
> 
> Yes. Now it's just a question of getting money, reservations, and plane tickets, 
> and getting presentations ready.
> 
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 11, 2018, at 3:42 PM, spencer shepler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > As you will note, I have submitted a meeting request for IETF 102 (Thanks for pushing the discussion this week, Chuck).
> 
> Thank you for requesting the room!
> 
> Go/No-go went by us on Friday. I haven't heard any objections to
> meeting, and there does seem to be a substantive list of topics
> we could discuss. We appear to have enough energy behind meeting
> in Montreal in July.
> 
> 
> > I wanted to get the meeting request in given the positive outlook and for the fact that hotel registration deadlines were approaching quickly.
> > 
> > I can cancel the meeting request if there is a lack of interest but we should make that decision soon (Monday or Tuesday at the latest).
> > 
> > Spencer
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Without expressing an opinion about when WGs meet and do not meet (that's a WG decision), it might be worth me mentioning that it's extremely unlikely I would object to a virtual interim meeting for any of my WGs, and the TSV ADs have a dedicated WebEx bridge ... so if you need to talk, but not badly enough to meet face to face, you still have options.
> > 
> > Do the right thing, of course!
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Spencer (D)
> > 
> > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/
> > 
> > Says the cut-off for requesting a meeting room is June 1, 2018.
> > 
> > I can think of a few agenda topics that are relevant at this time:
> > 
> > - Tom/Trond have some virtualization-related extensions and other protocol fixups
> > - I can give a backgrounder on the Integrity Measurement work I'm doing
> > - Dave and I have the mv0 and mv1 trunking documents
> > - Any other 2018 milestones, such as the expired pNFS SCSI NVMe layout I-D
> > - RPC/RDMA credits: the road ahead
> > 
> > That's not an exhaustive list, but it seems like critical mass already.
> > Any other thoughts?
> > 
> > Can we set a go/no-go decision date, say Friday May 18th?

--
Chuck Lever