Re: [nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2

spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer.shepler@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 E79B71206BE for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 3CTNJEVNu5ra for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::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 D90E41206B3 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id h10so17755772ljg.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EkBy3EjvSgpc2ClkUsLwvYltcPzxFbSXtZTwUZq+2js=; b=gCkXtpwTazOI/Lw+XJHwAn1BaQn40YvdpRcRiADxDFHt6EI/OWdPUcAFla9zkZ3pyX W9NnDHvrp5HUMwBkTXuUAQFmdXJWAIWem1Rt+g6LwQgZorakTlzh1hYdctBk26uwQj96 kUtoJdIVJMAhnZN+/XYkO27Fi4e7SQfUzQji9S0rlYwOeKBFCpTVyhoPxG+vxG+9I7zx itAq1VoLUUBxLD5P/GLWrb48wusjzP77LNleJGk5e5GHv4xAjtnNlWQmu+OYu/2vjBLx XHDSn4HPvgg1InpqWrP3ZAc/ICN+NFuoLRnS/NLxsCIQYVxTWopcr3f73TocB+0UjcyP 74Iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EkBy3EjvSgpc2ClkUsLwvYltcPzxFbSXtZTwUZq+2js=; b=JsPmhmra3qaknK40wLoQbDiggWGT6EaB5ZcbHilyFjiSQ4OTVTBEfK1+Gap/29GAAj GOtNVbnyskpHeYvftYXJAQGU5SG639CMaTueBtZZ+A9cQ6aRHpO/zdaRWUR6kpjbRxKk HNLxIsICCDxwtNdbADeY+Xz9mm+PV1Q8aC+RwXd7eAV6wCBaS7tzOqv59q3ETvWcV0Z4 +OAGiIVA5kMyB6J97AuFNHmLeMyNfPruyABPPHFnOg04wJ/Gik8HE1JsE6U7yaRXEr2U nDXGbu/FsnhDRMVa4KhuFJqfMWCZEmjy/fenFwkHBnPbbMck5VMR5WtEASnuMGF0PmOC TWgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVqeUbEWvxybGMEcJVu0+pvo6r27nZ/WjurfcJsloqAi1rwit3 R9k8qc7wi97sgferiedT71fdvG35XUK2eYnrNRk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAvgsNowlnoUIIFU1Ngk+1djXRiDllX6ZRvudo9KJvkmi8dCRQ0Ib3E9r+0LJhjRYSmW4Lyu8IPcEgMavC6wc=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a58:: with SMTP id k24mr18034848ljj.165.1562088240125; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADaq8jdjRyMD_im_3T7VPPX8T3FzCfL+bXsso8Bnz01aks88Nw@mail.gmail.com> <A8575F78-4307-48FB-BE7D-222FE4A9CC8F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8575F78-4307-48FB-BE7D-222FE4A9CC8F@gmail.com>
From: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:23:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFt6Ba=4BjMF5Fr0dce5E7fDXOq4u9T1S-AKcubx_rwqM5oaww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a91fbe058cb6024e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/UEI06QMwnxphgdUf67s0LSt8jZw>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Jul 2019 17:24:11 -0000

Thanks everyone. I am vacation this week but will pull things together once
I am back.

Spencer


On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:19 PM Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm, I also asked for presentation time….
>
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 12:23 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Although we have decided to meet in Montreal, have a (two-hour) session
> scheduled, and Chuck and I have sent lists of proposed topics to the group,
> we need to get an agenda together for the meeting.   Chuck and I have
> discussed what we feel are the high-priority topics for discusion at the
> meeting.   I previously sent out an incomplete preliminary agenda.   Since
> then, there have been a few updates, so I'm sending the updated list of
> items.   In any case, we still need to hear from:
>
>    - Anyone who knows of additional high-priority items to be added the
>    list.
>    - Anyone who feels that we should *not *be talking about any of the
>    items currently on the list
>
> It looks like there will be additional time available.   If people have
> worthwhile items to discuss that are not high-priority, they should send
> messages to the list and assess interest.   If there are too many to fit,
> the working group can express its priorities.  If we still wind up with
> available time when IETF105 rolls around, we can open up the meeting for
> whatever people would like to bring up.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Agenda Bashing -- All -- 5 min..*
>
> *Current updates* *to NFSv4 spec -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*
>
> This will cover the following documents
>
>    - RFC8587 (*NFS Version 4.0 Trunking Update*): It makes sense to
>    discuss this together with the document below since the trunking-related
>    updates for both NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 are pretty much the same, even though
>    one is cuurrently an RFC, while the other will probably not be when we meet.
>    - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns (*Network File System (NFS)
>    Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*): This provides updates to NFSv4.1
>    dealing with trunking and transparent state migration.  There will be a
>    discussion regarding the state of the approval/publication process.
>
> *Review of Current Working group Milestones -- D. Noveck -- 20 min.*
>
> This will cover all of our current miilestones.   In two cases, the
> milestones gave already been achieved.
>
> There are six items that have not yet been achieved that still need to be
> discussed:
>
>    - Submit final document describing use of NVMe in accessing a pNFS
>    SCSI Layout (as Proposed Standard)
>
> No current document but still has working group interest. Probably should
> not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.
>
>
>    - Submit Final documents descibing NFSv4.1 trunking discovery and
>    NFSv4.1 Transpaent state migration (two milestones neing addressed by one
>    document)
>
> This is now addressed in the working group document, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns
> (*Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol*):.
> Discussed in detail in another talk.
>
>
>    - Submit final document describing CM private data convention for
>    RPC-over-RDMA version 1 (Informational)
>
> This is now a working group document draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data (*RDMA
> Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1*).  It is on
> its way to IESG consideration.
>
>
>    - Submit final document describing RDMA Layout for pNFS.
>
> No current document but still has working group interest. Possibly  should
> not be a milestone. Need a plan to go forward with this.
>
>
>    - Submit final document defining RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 (as Proposed
>    Standard)
>
> This is now an I-D, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two (*RPC-over-RMA
> Version Two Protocol*). This will be discussed in one of the additional
> talks.
>
> *RPC-TLS and related security work -- C.Lever -- 15 min.*
>
> This will be primarily focused on draft-etf-nfsv4-rpc-tls (*Remote
> Procedure Call Encryption by Deafault)* but we also want to discuss the
> potential need for other documents such as an NFSv4-focused document and
> documents relating to QUIC.
>
> *Moving Forward on Integrity Measurement Draft -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*
>
> Time for discussion of the future of
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement (*Integrity Measurement for
> Network File System version 4*) and possible objection/issues with that
> draft.
>
> *RPC-over-RDMA Version 2 -- C. Lever -- 10 min.*
>
> Discussion of current atatus and what is necessary to go forward with this
> document.
>
> *Proposed Plans for rfc5661bis -- D. Noveck -- 15 min.*
>
> Will discuss updates that need to be done to provide a reasonably current
> description of NFSv4.1.   The assumption is that the bis RFC document will
> be based  on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661-msns-update (*NFS Version 4.1
> Update for Multi-Server Namespace*) coverted, as the IESG appears to
> want, into a bis-like format but that the following additional changes
> would need to be added:
>
>    - Updates to reflect the changes Tom made to pNFS mapping type
>    requirements in RFC8434.
>    - Changes to avoid the NFSv4.1 specification contradicting RFC8178.
>    - A new internationalization section modeled on that in RFC7530
>    - A new Security Considerations section that meets the requirements of
>    RFC3552 and reflect the changes/advances made my the security work now
>    underway.
>    - Current erratta.
>    - Anything else people think needs to be fixed in the NFSv4.1
>    specification.
>
> We can also consider alternate plans to provide more current NFSv4.1
> specification documents.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I'd like to mention that, for those unable to be in Montreal on the week
> of 7/20, remote participation will be available, even for people who want
> to present a talk.   Time zones can be a drag, but it is well worth
> considering remote presentation if you have something you think the working
> group needs to  hear.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>