Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning

[spencer shepler <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 1:52 PM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Reminder: IETF 107 is March 22 - 27 in Vancouver, CA.
>>
>> In a recent thread, Spencer Shepler said:
>> > I would appreciate it if the WG spend some time in building a draft
>> agenda so that content and schedule can be built.
>>
>
> The draft agenda will be needed about two weeks before the meeting, i.e.
> about four months from now.  Still, I think it makes sense to start the
> planning process, as you have done, early although, given that things may
> change between now and then, we want to retain some flexibility/agility.
>

Yes, that is correct.  A formal agenda is needed two weeks prior to the
meeting.  I was attempting to respond to your earlier comments about
needing to define the meeting content with enough advanced notice so that
potential attendees could assess and plan their participation accordingly.
My apologies if I didn't ask for that appropriately.


>
> I think we should plan based on the framework that Magnus has suggested:
> one session devoted to the working group's current agenda and a second
> about things for future consideration.
>

Is that 2 x 2.5 hours sessions or 2 x 1 hour sessions.


>
> As far as the first session, I would need some time to discuss matters
> related to rfc5661bis and related documents. I'm guessing 30-40 minutes
> will be needed.
>

Is there a reason that we are waiting 4 months before discussing this
information?  I hope that you have a plan to introduce these ideas prior to
the face-to-face meeting such that there can be discussion of what plan to
undertake with rfc5661bis.


>
> As far as possible contributions to the second session, this is kind of
> early, but I expect people to come up with interesting ideas.
>
> For my own part,  I'll be sending out a proposal for some topics (about
> 20 minutes worth) in the next few weeks.
>

I hope, again, that these ideas can be discussed on the working alias prior
to the meeting to garner wider feedback and input.  I still doubt that
in-person presence will be broad so capturing the valuable input from the
email threads would be great.


>
>
>> I can start by listing the items I'm working on and what kind
>> of meeting resources IMO might be needed for discussion. I'm
>> going to assume that we will avoid "status reporting" here,
>> and strive to use the meeting time mainly for interactive
>> discussion of open questions.
>>
>
> I anticipate there will be some need for status-related time in the first
> session. Let's say five minutes. I hope we will be hearing from those with
> active wg documents and/or milestones.  The critical areas requiring wg
> consideration of status are for those documents not otherwise represented.
>

I would prefer that we stop making the face-to-face working group meetings
status meetings.

If there is status to report, put it into a paragraph or two and send it to
the working group alias such that it is recorded, broadly disseminated.
Much better use of everyone's time.


>
>
>> - rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data: Hoping this will be published by March.
>>
>
> Me too.
>
> In any event, no meeting time needed for this document.
>>
>
> I sure hope not, given that the document was finished in June.
>
>
>> - rpc-tls: I'm hoping this document will be in post-WG publication
>> process in March. I anticipate there will be no need for meeting
>> time for this work, unless something changes significantly.
>>
>
> Part of the 5661bis discussion will be about security but I think the role
> of rpc-tls will be as a base for what it is possible to do in a revised v4
> security framework.
>
>
>> - rpcrdma-version-two: The protocol is nearing feature completion.
>> I anticipate this may be in WGLC in March, but it might need
>> further discussion. Let's say 15 minutes on this one.
>>
>
> Sounds about right..
>
> Note that this document also has implications for the new security
> framework, just as rpc-tls does.
>
>
>> - integrity-measurement: I want to have an IMA metadata format
>> document in draft form for this meeting. Let's say 15 minutes
>> for this discussion.
>
>
> That's reasonable although it is possible to not get a real resolution no
> matter how much time we spend :-(
>
> In addition, we could schedule a phone call
>> or two before March to get through the objections to the current
>> document.
>>
>
> I think we should do that and use the meeting time to make sure that
> everyone is ok with whatever resolution was reached previously
>

Put them on the calendar and plan ahead.

2 weeks notice and the US holiday season is starting soon.

Spencer