[nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 wg meeting draft agenda?
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Wed, 15 June 2016 13:27 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 3542D12D615 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 KmuCnwoOm0qg for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 72EA712D613 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p204so33192168oih.3 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=t/YwpkGMvT4nvASF4DZ0fbhkatzybqizT/VQ1mXVYpw=; b=Nu0ABpd350HlXeIoPfCXzYvuRiGwCNSwgXb9E+kyz+v+CYknPb3H5ywAWpWszVbx7i JrFc2ceYdRlbn7o9UDcIrWxQwtGHma+Emu2X63x7T2N/GHWM7rvxy3EtJmWx0a8Ok01C lsg4yLYWDxH6ktwaQHhnFbVOb8NgTB0qoR9E91VCgdnbS+5QDYC7lxleZFzNDpeHDbe2 +AwBsCMsZECMCdB/FOsFlZVHLy39rtWPH4GKRpo3eBI5Jn+wmBOgRMnOC8IetVaGxxCW zd3/LeQhCxR1R9NWA9YVximlfHtmcQ8rdsvn1q3hY2Pp/MXImBCkM7SNMQS+4FJAyM4K zcAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=t/YwpkGMvT4nvASF4DZ0fbhkatzybqizT/VQ1mXVYpw=; b=b3bPgDLqGcB2/jzjEYIa0N+aeHeNw1gCut5vmEKxzaOqtRmjEZXNPlWEJg/BA/WNHE mSYvH5U82XQu3GmWxBzB1P47y7uBXqGLK/VkC2b+E0rcmfTKeTRZO3Hu8vq17zC8wHTj XoY5oKtg6s9mXzuwacA7I5C9jwbkKYq+NQAp6qHTEEIU1Adx+8URm8+IUIDpBNAEff4/ dSgl+pu/rFfTlLt3mTkZNXWt10VFcbUOdpOsHDKsmLTEhmFNb0F7js4O2xLEDm8KrFuI 77trDcN5AYSzXWfqba42cPW/v3GukkzEYDlBQhwDvAjba9FGUeNEMAHFYc0dJ8Z9/H8H 9cvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKpG1P8R9gk4Tn6x1aGkKK6Gt4EIJK9LARmzwzGgSnXgfYpGHQufnhYjz5EU478XbjgpHX5jtvohACOcg==
X-Received: by 10.157.33.67 with SMTP id l3mr12262813otd.61.1465997251689; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.20.72 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:27:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jeq8EN2GgUPcoEvB+Yq=jrbLxAm5+DEZiVFWkG5MFdu6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c166bc6dc12205355115cb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/NFqhLV7R2xTV6DnfWIo_IoXYz9k>
Subject: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 wg meeting draft agenda?
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:27:34 -0000
First a warning. I'm going to be discussing schedules. Now for people who are have not hit delete and are still reading, my answer to the above question is "Yes, we need it soon" Let me provide some background here: - Spencer originally wanted to get a start on a draft agenda by 5/20. While people did provide information about things they might talk about, there were not specific talk proposals with titles and durations that Spencer could use as the basis for an early draft agenda . In any case, that target date went by nearly four weeks ago. - The critical target date is 7/7 by which time an actual agenda has to be provided. Given the discussion that has already gone on regarding things that might talked about (by me, Chuck, and Christoph) it is pretty clear that some sort of draft can be provided by that date, given that we have the option, since it is a "draft", of making needed changes later. - If we want an agenda that truly reflects the working group's needs, we need to have a draft that we can discuss and possibly update before the official draft agenda is ready for submission. Given that the target date is about three weeks off, I think we need to have that -00 for the draft within the next week. I'm going to propose a couple of talks below. I think it makes sense for anyone with a talk proposal to add theirs to the list. If those fit in 150 minutes, we have our -00. If not, we may need some working group discussion to get to a -00. While I expect the working group to try to accommodate late-arriving proposals, I'd hope that people would get their proposals in as soon as possible. Anyway, my proposed talks would be: - A discussion about the NFSv4 extension stuff, *NFSv4 Extension Paradigm: What Next?.* The documents to be discussed would be *draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-04 *and *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-extension-00* (TBD). The goal was to resolve current disagreements about whether we should go on as we have, with the existing standards-track document, convert the existing working-group document to be informational, or to split the document into standards-track and informational documents. I'd allocate 30 minutes for this. - A presentation about currently proposed extensions to RPC-over-RDMA Version Two, *Updating RPC-over-RDMA: Next steps.* The documents to be discussed would be *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-**xcharext-00*, *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtissues-00*, and *draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtrext-00.* The goal here would be to present and discuss current extension proposals, see what the working group response is, and decide where we want to go next in this area. I'd allocate 30 minutes for this.
- Re: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 w… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 w… Spencer Shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 w… David Noveck
- [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 wg me… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 w… Christoph Hellwig