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

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
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 00ECA129C6E for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.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 ulvoV-O071qU for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com (userp2120.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F17127909 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4LGuQIl004093; Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57:35 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2017-10-26; bh=Zfie0bdYl6YnygMqnQwZyAhoozIxJ+5XNj6JxUAs548=; b=iEzq86nhzBZIhWjcoiWusTmUZLfIWTo4HgPpkEpZvEBZctRjWT/kZoLqWsynomMCG/i6 Vr6quQb5W3pEve0xLCnh/eeZxWr9DRJLGmcwSFWCNym4uZrQdEDDFeeEYVrwzMYq4r+S 4S+kKd8unPfgCxjt8FDrJ7a57YgZ8PO8GqnQgX/fXPLxHizoxLE1IgWqxL2LkruwM+a3 TO4+UnYEZmRzrLlDX8r9lp8qJqFiL9pe/hChskVY1Mjq9Kn72eh1vtU2BHOxHpbd32rr NUM7TriuM/xRm7Q+4G1g15oeUO50chyAPqOFlUJrdfCyR8S1bpDr0QgZVNwEghlauwFp ZA==
Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2j2ck9d2yn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57:35 +0000
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w4LGvYL9003248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57:34 GMT
Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w4LGvYxe013132; Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57:34 GMT
Received: from [10.126.150.87] (/148.87.23.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:34 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jfAz=-GPxQia7j-0snFr-zaTaqD=pjhdScpiAfz8DbC0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:33 -0700
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <166DE121-4C1E-40EC-B7B6-6948BD1E2234@oracle.com>
References: <89A4F7ED-2658-492C-BDAC-02193C956C33@oracle.com> <CAKKJt-cZiLL-q-tm+h80S_BX85VNzdc+TKB8g9n-yJd5KP9aOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6Bam_3Kz4+AwSxxaHY0OUedZd2Xob2KQU3cgPvDPwhbaQXg@mail.gmail.com> <A048F25C-0F85-4DCF-AABA-7578919B761B@oracle.com> <CADaq8jfAz=-GPxQia7j-0snFr-zaTaqD=pjhdScpiAfz8DbC0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8900 signatures=668700
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805210202
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/MO4ywWye5z-KuG-P6ydBfV0VSjI>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 16:57:39 -0000


> On May 21, 2018, at 9:34 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> 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 <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 11, 2018, at 3:42 PM, spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> 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 <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> 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 <chuck.lever@oracle.com> 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