Re: [nfsv4] Working group recharter

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your sugestions about the charter.  Will incorporate these in
the fnal draft.

> In particular, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-msg and
> draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two need some discussion to
> resolve their paths to becoming WG documents. I will start a
> thread on [e-mail] in a few days to start that
> discussion.

One of the version two issues concerned the use of one-way messages and
the possible effect on credit logic.  I'll send some mail to the list about
this issue
in the next few days.

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> > On Jul 23, 2017, at 7:23 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > We discussed this at the working group meeting at IETF99.  In the
> meeting materials you can find:
> >       • Ietf99CharterDiscuss which are the slides I presented about the
> effort.
> >       • Ietf99CharterMateials which had the latest draft charter and
> milestone proposals, both converted to a powerpoint form.
> > With regard to the draft charter there were only very minor changes
> made, which are reflected in the attached file NearFinalCharterDraft.
> >
> > I'd like people to look at the current draft and send mail to the list
> about any issues they see.  Even though there was broad agreement
> > at the working group meeting, I don't think we can consider this draft
> as final yet.  I think people who were not able to be in Prague or to
> > participate remotely given the meeting time (starting at 00:30 Pacific
> and 03:30 Eastern) should have the opportunity to comment before
> > we go forward on a re-charter effort.  I think a week is a reasonable
> time so please offer any comments by 7/30.  In my presentation to the
> > working group, I stressed that we were looking for agreement on the
> basic message and that minor corrections could wait.  Because we seem
> > to have  reached that basic agreement, I'd like everyone think about any
> worthwhile correction they might offer, whether they attended the
> > working group meeting or not.
>
> Maintenance section, slide one of two:
>
> "The working group is chartered with the vetting of the issues
> and determining correctness of submitted errata."
>
> Not clear which "issues" are referred to in this sentence.
> How about:
>
> "The working group is chartered with vetting reported issues
> and determining correctness of submitted errata."
>
>
> Maintenance section, slide two of two:
>
> "or to respond to changed IESG expectations with regard to
> areas such as security."
>
> How about:
>
> "or to respond to evolving IESG expectations with regard to
> areas such as security."
>
>
> > With regard to the milestones, things are a little further off.  There
> is only one milestone in the current draft.  While there is no minimum
> number,
> > we would like to have more.  David  Black suggested that
> one-milestone-per-working-document was a good model, which makes sense.
> The only
> > problem is that if you look at our current list of working group
> documents, we seems to have a temporary shortage.
> >
> > If you look at our current seven working group documents:
> >       • Three are past WGLC and waiting for various stages of IESG
> handling, which leaves them out as milestone candidates.  Creating
> milestones fr these would essentially be giving the IESG milestones and
> they might not like that.  The drafts in question are rfc5667bis, xattrs,
> and umask.
> >       • Two drafts, flex-file and layout-types., are now in a WGLC
> scheduled to end 8/11. which makes milestones for these kind of pointless.
> >       • The remaining draft, migration issues is the one that has an
> associated milestone.
> > I expect that, in the next several weeks we will be considering adding
> some working group documents.  I'd like to ask those who will be making
> > proposals in this regard to give some thought to likely milestones and
> let me know so I can update the draft milestones.  It's important to note
> > that Spencer D has indicated that such milestones will not be set in
> stone.  We are looking for people's best estimates, which can be revised
> > if unanticipated issues arise.
>
> One of the purposes of the "NFS/RDMA Next Steps" talk during
> IETF 99 was to review the various personal drafts in the bull
> pen and select which ones might be appropriate for promotion
> to WG document. At the end of that talk, it was agreed that
> there was not a quorum of working group members present to
> make any final choices.
>
> In particular, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-msg and
> draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two need some discussion to
> resolve their paths to becoming WG documents. I will start a
> thread on [e-mail] in a few days to start that
> discussion.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>