Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion, close at IETF99

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Tue, 09 May 2017 01:31 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 9F9EF1294B8 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:31:16 -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 rTVq4r-kROTg for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (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 80C78126C83 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e65so48630443ita.1 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 May 2017 18:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oD+tXcC2chHCxxY/igg+PaQK/+yt7NWUQLeNsHjOUn0=; b=qPZLSqBdo2K2s3PR8YwLoV+3uQzPgUDk/RpMgnnDiZbnyGyL85+h7C3oU5nkhTbEqV rsyqkLOk6dp8Nlm+bNc+ibYjjjmJv2A8F8hj1oeA3B+3OLxggJmfXf1uLYPrzhbcMJSi b1rhSamnEsIVlM4/mKI5csm007qWKKAMl/izCJperkozF7N7mk7aO/ZAvv9ciuc4j6Ek WVc2fvl5KuvSrl0xlPgJjWnWyk3gAvmhZanpwKwizVtv8ZraQ97/kLU8UinUlSDp7857 dmE4BSVoczBnjLLKaDbouzW1prYxNjxNifMYMm2t6f6qXsKj91auEAUx9laojKjwFnG1 ThIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oD+tXcC2chHCxxY/igg+PaQK/+yt7NWUQLeNsHjOUn0=; b=YsmJtqLfIEwRXPJDoWVtrUMELfJcB5FH1mnNwYgtJL2vrLFNS5RdqhUkSxzev3Bxrb F1eJJOZNoHtGUMzJt11BWUq+T11UxryCRAjOmjccJFcmlQP6pm1zVGS6P4PdWBNB1AJz uOqF7syGmt1kVf0r7WMUs+LGQZqxX7FvhsMKCYLx3x+2VF0oNFr4N6BqWZqaF7NM4loo q/+hY+66BKMXxYQG/xMFw8wkz0mOn1P/fHQWYCpsRizgiWV2eSxnY3M4fqZdXlIKasMP MWo0gSkHXLsBau60Q9jD5XnjW2cyCCTUvtuHTemctQXbI7ryltriJEhhUY7xKgT3K64r mMfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5AnqzGu3eDn0n/ult1dBB5zmPPZI/t88zvbqoww5jAizH2cNSj eo3c+IaFJIOe8ZyNiwb6rxJUP+dbAfzu
X-Received: by 10.36.72.6 with SMTP id p6mr23421123ita.80.1494293473685; Mon, 08 May 2017 18:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.20.75 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4332475259118046202@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAFt6BamV4w6+zNQRCgvsM+MXHE35HYpjmoEmwM05DeG6XQwVog@mail.gmail.com> <4332475259118046202@unknownmsgid>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 21:31:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jf8t-J4fK8bc19XQNECzufiLACmV5m83vRSgCGPh5k66g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Pawlowski <beepy@purestorage.com>
Cc: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114448beb079b4054f0d4f90"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/QD3-2MJnAcOq9PZDp09oNBSivtI>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WG Charter update - email discussion, close at IETF99
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: Tue, 09 May 2017 01:31:17 -0000

Spencer wrote:
> Hi.  It is time that we update our charter

Yes we need to update the charter.

> to determine what is next for the working group.

I don't see us making a big decision like that in Prague.

I expect us to continue the kind of work we have been doing, with
the charter updated to include it

> Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email.

He nudged back.  It appears you guys have two different conceptions
of what "take that on" means and I'm not prepared to referee.

> In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items.

I'm sure we'll do that

Beepy wrote:

> Let's whack it on email

I've tried to begin the whacking process below.  Comments and alternate
proposed drafts are welcome.

> and then put on agenda for fine tuning at Prague.

We can  discuss this in Prague, if we have time., but we are not going to
come up with a final text in a half-hour or even two hours.

I think the goal for the Prague discussion has to be confirmation of an
agreement on an outline previously agreed upon and a time line for
submission of the new charter.   After that it is up to you and the
Spencers to make it happen.

Draft Charter for Working Group (Ready for further whacking)

NFS Version 4 is the IETF standard for file sharing. To maintain NFS
Version 4's utility and currency, the working group is chartered to
maintain the existing NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, NFSv4.2, Federated Namespace, and
related specifications. In addition, extensions will be developed, as
necessary, to correct problems with the protocols as currently specified,
to accommodate needed file system semantics, and to make significant
performance improvements.  Finally, deployment guidance will be collected
for deployments of the NFSv4 FedFS implementations and their interaction
with integration with new user authentication models.

*Maintenance*

The working group has found that as NFSv4 implementations mature and
deployments continue, clarifications to existing RFCs are needed. These
clarifications assist vendors in delivering quality and interoperable
implementations. The working group is chartered with the vetting of the
issues and determining correctness of submitted errata. In addition, some
areas may need more concentrated work to correct the specifications
already published or to deal with unanticipated interactions between
features In the cases in which required changes are inappropriate for the
errata system, the working group will assist in publication of best
practices RFCs or of RFCs that provide editorial modification or technical
updates to original RFCs.

*Extension*

The NFSv4 protocol is designed to allow extension by the addition of new
operations or new attributes, the creation of minor versions, and the
definition of new pNFS mapping types.  The working group will discuss
proposals for such extensions and assure they have adequate technical
review including discussion of their interaction with existing features
before adopting them as working group items and helping to draft
specification documents.

*Performance Challenges*

The increase of network bandwidths and the reduction of latencies
associated with network traffic and access to persistent storage have
created challenges for remote file access protocols which need to meet
increasingly demanding performance expectations.  Some work already done in
this area includes the respecification of RPC-over-RDMA Version One and the
pNFS SCSI layout.  It is likely that further work in this area will be
required.  This might take the form of further RPC-over-RDMA versions,
adaptation of the SCSI layout to NVMe, or the development of an
RDMA-oriented pNFS layout.  The working group needs to discuss these
alternatives, and possibly others, and develop the most promising ones.

*RFC5664bis*

Propose that this be terminated with extreme prejudice

*NFSv4.2*

This is already done so it might as well be whacked.

*NFSv4 Multi-Domain Access for FedFS*

A lot has happened in this area but there is probably work still to be
done.  My suggestion is that Andy propose a replacement section, if
necessary

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Brian Pawlowski <beepy@purestorage.com>
wrote:

> Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.
>
> Here is the current charter:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charter/
>
> Let's whack it on email and then put on agenda for fine tuning at Prague.
>
> Our AD will weigh in on what is appropriate. Last time we did this I
> believe we focused on things actively being worked on (staffed) with some
> agreement rather than creating new work items that had not been yet
> discussed.
>
> beepy
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 12:30 PM, spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi.  It is time that we update our charter to determine what is next for
> the working group.
>
> Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email.
>
> In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items.
>
> Spencer
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
>