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

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On May 9, 2017, at 12:49 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > IMO the maintenance and extension sections should also mention
> > ONC RPC (and RPCSEC GSS) explicitly. A new version of RPCSEC
> > was recently ratified, and RPC can be extended in the future
> > to operate on new types of transport layers.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> 
> > > Performance Challenges
> 
> > /layout/layout type
> 
> > Is work on respecifying RPC-over-RDMA Version One considered
> > maintenance or performance? 
> 
> I consider it both and I don't think it is a problem.  Performance is the
> motivation while each of the performance items fits under one of the 
> mechanisms, either being maintenance or extension
> 
> > My impression from Dallas was
> > this was maintenance of existing specifications.
> 
> Under the old charter, there was no performance category.
> 
> It fit under maintenance at Dallas since:
> 	• Very few people people had read the charter and so most did not understand how constrained the concept of maintenance there was.  
> 	• At the time we embarked on this, we didn't realize that substantive technical changes were required., and thought of this (wrongly) as purely a matter of editorial correction. For example the bi-direction work, while clearly necessary, did not fit in the existing charter.  
> 
> > Where does Andy's multi-path work fit? 
> 
> > Does it need explicit mention in the WG charter?
> 
> I'll leave that question to Andy.  From a motivation point of view, this is performance-related.
> 
> As far as mechanism, Andy has mentioned the possibility of an additional attribute with connection bandwidth/capability information, which would be a v4.2 extension.
> 
> Other work would probably fit in the maintenance category.  When migration-issue-13 is out, we can talk about plans to follow up.   I'd like 20 minutes at IETF-99 for the working group to discuss this.  
> 
> > Does the WG want to continue pursuing FedFS, if only in
> > maintenance mode? 
> 
> This is something the working group will have to decide, but if there is nobody to do the work, it doesn't matter what the WG decides.

Fair enough. I'm not volunteering.

The question is whether it is worth a mention in the charter
as part of the WG's maintenance mission. IMO FedFS is truly
moribund (and I'd bet there are others on the WG who knew
this years ago), thus looking forward, perhaps the charter
should not mention FedFS.


> > Is Andy's multi-domain work able to continue if FedFS is removed from the docket?
> 
> I think it can.  IIRC his document was not limited to FedFS but treated it as one likely use.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, the man question is whether Andy wants to continue this work.  I certainly think it is useful

I wasn't sure, but I thought this work was complete with the
publication of RFC 8000. I'm thinking part of our review should
determine what else might be needed.


--
Chuck Lever