Return-Path: 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 C3D23132073 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 vVZVP7J_tOFI for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (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 D278613206D for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l7so82328992iof.1 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ElgrLhEDVAxMF/GwYbPwHYT2mVUCJJVWq4JQ9yEV20Q=; b=CBObaGnYhpN4g6DTKJTEaMjTa+J7rvDALs/DkzfdXRGgjd/Q89Ebefg2GAxLsBBPGK dFwvIG4uMjlvEfyoyjheN5TpXRS5fyGMC7S3yxK0hvSvFEFol3aTaK7z9KQ+s7ZI5vZd 0knQuj0bZEgjSc/wxKn7bZjlfe5ao2eW5IJjRYWHsJZ6JBMziWmD8sQgc5yZdVsrlFnt 4lhdDGGYvSzIxH6gwfKemujvaCNXZ/j3/ZFHO6VFIt72QmRrucbORxtZ/fjwC0Ta2Wfb 1TGkSqH9O5uXPTCxC52hDOis35tuhQUYO6lqgaawKE7T4TGIus743bPkNxu/PpY/ltwL bU4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ElgrLhEDVAxMF/GwYbPwHYT2mVUCJJVWq4JQ9yEV20Q=; b=RahDkdyNEoLYouWZ4NLYrJ0wtLVXnVV7x/fLm0ekgs+ziZ4DeGMHz7eAO9m9j5oqUk PoLu+4uC1L7WOL2UGqO+gkilkrUpNOwHylPYaAE4qhMY5bwzhaFd1IUqa+Hi5E038pIt am2LM2o6sSnjtFVui5xc8L18MyOYYgcfnWRSfACGrM20eWpAL4T04Kmubph/qjMi2Kya k67TlFvLzVe1ZxXnVVL3VrM+80HoBWmZ4K8agKTNc2WfBwEam+FCcFfB9prxMB+ghlAC WX+sai62i5lEYusEHXAdSahWGszxZ7BDsC0i4K6xOhzdM2T/h8E2B1dWOcOc1NuVrRl1 oNwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112JIbrAySp3o3BwCre4gQMebVG0D/gnA5AS4ta/zlCSdKxI389r hQpP7OrHlG93Y35hVKJMbd7zGP1Qnw== X-Received: by 10.107.164.130 with SMTP id d2mr6574819ioj.14.1501177485038; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.142.72 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0E377446-F576-4797-8661-415034B3F3E5@oracle.com> References: <0E377446-F576-4797-8661-415034B3F3E5@oracle.com> From: David Noveck Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:44:44 -0400 Message-ID: To: Chuck Lever Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141bc56bd9c5e0555501e35" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Working group recharter X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:44:48 -0000 --001a1141bc56bd9c5e0555501e35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 nfsv4@ietf.org 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 wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2017, at 7:23 AM, David Noveck wrote: > > > > We discussed this at the working group meeting at IETF99. In the > meeting materials you can find: > > =E2=80=A2 Ietf99CharterDiscuss which are the slides I presented a= bout the > effort. > > =E2=80=A2 Ietf99CharterMateials which had the latest draft charte= r 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 an= y > 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: > > =E2=80=A2 Three are past WGLC and waiting for various stages of I= ESG > 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. > > =E2=80=A2 Two drafts, flex-file and layout-types., are now in a W= GLC > scheduled to end 8/11. which makes milestones for these kind of pointless= . > > =E2=80=A2 The remaining draft, migration issues is the one that h= as 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 nfsv4@ietf.org in a few days to start that > discussion. > > > -- > Chuck Lever > > > > --001a1141bc56bd9c5e0555501e35 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for your sugestion= s about the charter.=C2=A0 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 b= ecoming WG documents. I will start a
<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">> thread on=C2=A0nfsv4@ietf.o= rg=C2=A0in a few days to start that
> di= scussion.

=
One of the version two issues concerned the use of one-way messages and<= /span>
the possible effect on credit logic.=C2=A0 I'll send some mail to= the list about this issue=C2=A0
in the next few days.
=

On Thu, Jul 27, 2= 017 at 12:11 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> w= rote:

> On Jul 23, 2017, at 7:23 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We discussed this at the working group meeting at IETF99.=C2=A0 In the= meeting materials you can find:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Ietf99CharterDiscuss which are the= slides I presented about the effort.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Ietf99CharterMateials which had th= e latest draft charter and milestone proposals, both converted to a powerpo= int form.
> With regard to the draft charter there were only very minor changes ma= de, 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.=C2=A0 Even though there was broad agreement=
> at the working group meeting, I don't think we can consider this d= raft as final yet.=C2=A0 I think people who were not able to be in Prague o= r 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.=C2=A0 I think a week is a reason= able time so please offer any comments by 7/30.=C2=A0 In my presentation to= the
> working group, I stressed that we were looking for agreement on the ba= sic message and that minor corrections could wait.=C2=A0 Because we seem > to have=C2=A0 reached that basic agreement, I'd like everyone thin= k about any worthwhile correction they might offer, whether they attended t= he
> 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.=C2=A0 = There is only one milestone in the current draft.=C2=A0 While there is no m= inimum number,
> we would like to have more.=C2=A0 David=C2=A0 Black suggested that one= -milestone-per-working-document was a good model, which makes sense.= =C2=A0 The only
> problem is that if you look at our current list of working group docum= ents, we seems to have a temporary shortage.
>
> If you look at our current seven working group documents:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Three are past WGLC and waiting fo= r various stages of IESG handling, which leaves them out as milestone candi= dates.=C2=A0 Creating milestones fr these would essentially be giving the I= ESG milestones and they might not like that.=C2=A0 The drafts in question a= re rfc5667bis, xattrs, and umask.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Two drafts, flex-file and layout-t= ypes., are now in a WGLC scheduled to end 8/11. which makes milestones for = these kind of pointless.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=E2=80=A2 The remaining draft, migration iss= ues 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.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 It's important= to note
> that Spencer D has indicated that such milestones will not be set in s= tone.=C2=A0 We are looking for people's best estimates, which can be re= vised
> if unanticipated issues arise.

One of the purposes of the "NFS/RDMA Next Steps" talk duri= ng
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 nfsv4@ietf.org in a few day= s to start that
discussion.


--
Chuck Lever




--001a1141bc56bd9c5e0555501e35--