Re: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Given the absence of objections to the proposed meeting times, I will be
setting up a webex meeting on 7/9 at 9AM PDT == Noon EDT == 6PM CEST.  The
meeting will be scheduled for two hours, but depending on what there is to
discuss, may turn out to be shorter.

I'd like to get a preliminary agenda out soon, so, if you have
something you want to talk about, or think it is important for the group to
hear about, please let us know as soon as you can.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We've had some input from Magnus regarding our near-term meeting plans.
> It appears Magnus will be on vacation in August and July 13-17.  I gather
> that a virtual meeting in the last two weeks of July is a no-go.
>
> As a result, I am proposing that we schedule one two-hour virtual interim
> in the second week of July (7/6-7/10) .  To help give presenters time to
> prepare, it should be later in the week.  If anyone has a problem with a
> meeting 7/9 at 9AM PDT == Noon EDT == 1600 UTC == 1800 CEST, let us know
> quickly.
>
> As far as priority for meeting time:
>
>    - First priority will be for it's relating to the current working
>    group agenda, i. e. Things with current wg documents or milestones plus
>    things related to rfc5661bis.  I need to hear from other people about their
>    plans but my expectation is that this stuff is unlikely to take more than
>    an hour. For my thoughts about use of this time, see below
>
>
>    - Second priority will be for follow-up discussion of new work
>    proposals made at the previous virtual meeting.  I'll have some suggestions
>    below about how we might use time.
>
>
>    - Third priority will be for other new work proposals.  Unsure if
>    there will be any time for these so I expect that any of these that don't
>    fit will be deferred to a later virtual interim to be scheduled in
>    September.
>
> Regarding items in the current work category:
>
>    - I expect to take about about one half-hour to discuss things related
>    to rfc5661bis.
>
> For internationalization, I want to move to a working group document and
> need review within the group.  Review outside the group resulted in Nico
> telling me I was "on the right track"  *and* should write a totally
> different document😊.
>
> I expect dicussion of our security choices to take the majority of this
> time.   I had expected to submit
> draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization in May, but it has slipped to
> around May 45th😞
>
> Won;t be much to say about rfc5661bis.  Has been on hold waiting for
> sequii to turn into an RFC and RFC editing is kind of stuck right now😖
>
>
>    - I anticipate us hearing about pNFS/NVMe from David and/or Sorin.
>    David indicated to me that they had reconnected with Christoph and expected
>    to clarify things in June.   I think we need an update on that process.
>    Not sure whether we will dicuss a document submitted in June or
>    expectations regarding a document to be submitted later.   In either case,
>    we will want to set a realistic milestone for this work.
>    - I don't expect us to hear anything new about integrity measurement
>    but will schedule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
>    - I am anticipating some sort of update for rpc-over-RDMA version two
>    and am assuming, for planning purposes, about ten minutes.  I need an
>    update from check in the next few weeks so I can put an agenda together.
>
> With regad to folow-up discussion from new-work discussions last time:
>
>    - I've decided that rfc5661bis-related working group documents
>    (draft-ietf-nfs4-internationlization, draft-ietf-nfsv4-security-needs,
>    draft-ietf-nfsv4-security, draft-ietf-rfc5661bis) will be managed using
>    github.   Hope to get Chuck's help on a presentation about how this will
>    affect the writing and review process for these documents.
>    - We have anther opportunity to hear from Sorin about data reduction
>    attributes.  To make the time useful, we need a more substantial I-D.  If
>    one cannot be made available in June, suggest moving this discussion into
>    the September meeting.
>    - I think there is a need for some sort of followup discussion
>    regarding the directory operation performance issues discussed last time.
>     Due to lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory
>    layouts.
>
> With regard to directory delegation, it appears that a significant issue
> in is non-implementation is Chuck's belief (possibly shared by others) that
> any change to a directory, requires refetching the entire directory.  I
> think this is incorrect and makes directory notification essentially
> useless.   We might resolve this on the mailing list and I will send an
> email about the issue in the next few weeks.   If there needs to be further
> discussion of this issue, we will need 5-10 minutes of meeting time.
>
>
> I want to follow up on Chuck's speculation of protocol help for rm -r and
> would also like to discuss similar possible extensions usable for build
> apllications.
>
> With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on directory caching
> , we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we will want to
> say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:17 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> It has been decided that IETF 108 will be virtual-only.  The good thing
>> about that is that it would allow wider participation, being cheaper and
>> safer than a trip to Madrid. There will be a fee, but it is much smaller
>> than onsite fees have been and should not pose an obstacle for most people.
>>
>> What is likely to pose an obstacle is that it appears to have been
>> decided that virtual Madrid, will, like actual Madrid, be in CEST. This
>> mean that the latest 50-minute session will start at around 1600 CEST = 7AM
>> PDT.  A 100-minute session would start even earlier.  Both of these are
>> likely to be difficult to schedule so I think we will wind up with one or
>> more virtual interim nfsv4wg meetings.
>>
>> Meetings before the week of IETF 108 make sense but I'm not sure they
>> will be allowed. Meetings in the weeks after IETF 108 wind up conflicting
>> with August vacations but I'm not sure if that is all that important in
>> present circumstances.
>>
>> I'd like to get input from the working group about:
>>
>>    - Preferences for meeting dates and times including discussion of
>>    dates to avoid.
>>
>>
>>    - Information about what you want to hear discussed and and what you
>>    are topcis you are willing to present about or lead a focused discussion
>>    of.   Although I'm not clear about meeting numbers and format, I think it
>>    makes sense for us have coverage of both current working group items and
>>    new ideas as well.
>>
>> I'll be sending out my own ideas on things to discuss next week.   If we
>> don't want a meeting slot within IETF108 proper, as I believe is the case,
>> we don't have to worry about the 6/12 session request cutoff.   Still, I'd
>> like us to get a clear idea about this meeting cycle relatively quickly so
>> I'd aprreciate it we had people's input on topics within the next few weeks
>>
>>
>>
>>