Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 21 May 2018 19:29 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 E8E1F12E8D7 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 PtAevij1eMsG for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x233.google.com (mail-ot0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::233]) (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 29BB712E8DC for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 15-v6so18127517otn.12 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:29:00 -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=qZP+qpoNhOWm8cCx370uDX3Sbkfn/dX0iX8el4xHGaA=; b=bzfp2KE22f/ienvl3MJoHtudN1Iio7CNGV+ItMH58WTWr+97gacDX5JFCZfZ5hLPDg 5dRx9chuB/Oa5T/CHiAZ53hx7NWwhUWFmu3g5qv6YYehZbtDGC2wCgX787dURFIjtdUz lS33xao1omZHJh+aqS7L8rDQY86FQoMeMdKMx5VwjfpmLy9JcDyTIZD2c3ND8c2HZAr1 8NSDfs+EFpmYdj7+T9wvzu4q39l5W+cA/jsIDC9VaPimcDTV+ZrzxYSkEhM4B2x5TrGe SJrWYnqSDbXnvDLhEPkhrSjEKBdj5L6Yg5we+pQ4za5a4HQKQ8+V0pkNbojUAvkEReYU qnUA==
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=qZP+qpoNhOWm8cCx370uDX3Sbkfn/dX0iX8el4xHGaA=; b=fQhR1Aqn2xJj3h5+Y/E3E0sAPNXj1pZPqeJjCZ/pLy3qAr6eVZLtCgpUwyXFa5KGeo D8fGNnXrrxF369o7Rni6JnGCkGC7+YiU42lljhlmPK/nqk4MNxLAmiP2D3BLM6b+VR1z +U2gYN/x18Xeo9OocMs4qOwXE6FrBdguA34IC4QV3pAHCccbNgC1VVyUVB0ziDYe/gDh CYoVrQWyPTSdJCtoUmHVsthM3GCLCAAqvQO5iRzIKpIdifCCBrqJ1eq168SrSnZQP16V fICDMSeZg3FA6iUbu7pFN0b5y5GMZ+Frv+wQFj28YhFypbUW3QNjz+QrDWNfwmXIxrT8 /ljQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwc67Fs1F9ZRaUxVfcnut7X+YNdm/on69feRMw6kytZ90bxhdyE6 m3K2odUlBbbD/esUIJnUKAQuzGLEtHW5UTNyh8Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrdTblxw59W2VgsQOkm1YmoNzNO+INvfF01L27ix2jnnHi1q2UuCgZ0kJK1ZCajLUVl7LhEGKYF6qiPZlDKBf8=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4a90:: with SMTP id i16-v6mr14894909otf.279.1526930939363; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.201.55.233 with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2018 12:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <166DE121-4C1E-40EC-B7B6-6948BD1E2234@oracle.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:28:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdXY0ekeZDxBwCytQnDyo36oCTQVvBBqi-=C3abZ=h=dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003cc69c056cbc507b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/QEQpRwrXGSEhtgeCgxUAwmU1F3I>
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 19:29:03 -0000
Now for my agenda items: > Road map for completing draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 > - 10 minutes, should follow discussion of nfsv4-migration-update, > of course. That would place you between a discussion of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration- issues-15 and draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-00. If you want to change the order, we could do that. I'm assuming that the discussion of the three drafts will take 45 minutes as a whole. I think there will need to be a review of where we are on our milestones. It appears I will be a bit late on WGLC for draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration issues, but the other two documents in that group seem like they will be done in time. I expect the discussion/review of our remaining milestones will take about fifteen minutes. On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > >
- [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Dr James Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go Tom Haynes