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

Tom Haynes <> Tue, 02 July 2019 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED00D120454 for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3z1fk6L0hP9L for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53038120413 for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p10so7934451pgn.1 for <>; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zGWMMkgVwkr4ex52eYIb0o+ILFh2T9OXNgkRfUd1IrU=; b=HGG5dA4r4v9dFqMBsk0YV6dJuSz0CUIZlLMMcRZ3Athj34ybzswWNe+q4oAWA0V0Rv ByemwheolujDwVx49a8wz7DmAYCWUKkw2YWRZCtN1NLLDip4Rzgaiuv3FVKND3VvrIMv njYQdjNogYl7pMP+NuDxyFVDkkW0LIFBXiG+aUGVPyUAfdrHNGgfVvXxkIIZsD5G+ZAN zCElhjmCL83t26IvMEf7qjGV+AWqdt3Ls0tSpf0QsBjUsoeGK67wPcQ26yC2+KfOA9Bl R0cJxpd5wYaNUFw/wn4taIrj1QvF2u+LUjNToN6FZSTS0wHBwTj24fdte3rErs3/rPjr csSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zGWMMkgVwkr4ex52eYIb0o+ILFh2T9OXNgkRfUd1IrU=; b=uPs7nzNyO6UrQaaBUZ5LGovw41MipOUceYmXu21hKrV23SLaDqOlsd4dN7cpCjUd6/ a6qWZRilX6SGIZYzKKqHktPvBNckE7NVEfWLuinOEATHjJCfTvfxXUB6artK2+eMhC12 uOEbptLAPOSh7pBV5W59zRLAvtJFpFuN1YIbl4g9TIuhsA/H7FunqMFXibj5etiFxYZw QRL3rlRAESLmX0G5U6BQLeFVnTeFm4M+3B6QGnlB6A4fB3zRB0BIp/tpWT55Ourek725 frv3FiPsJ5TBUMPlIgwK6RdvhbReDI+MkeKMyT+L8/2uBI8c7jXq+CgJCfbqEtbdXOR+ mZuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUxWBycq3i4Ei9moskJzx4608NAiSOf2+x1UzCjkchQrAAneYK K/b/r9NEfxdeg4j2F987ppM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyhYVeUHph53yd4qKh+pxzQhZYhPvTGd/bWmuya86fgLTfAJj/Q8KzBNqCHNwoodEyBEH+0Xw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7358:: with SMTP id d24mr28946528pgn.224.1562084338626; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 23sm17019167pfn.176.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Haynes <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D223ADC1-2A28-4532-8C6F-17296B4D89AA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:18:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: NFSv4 <>
To: David Noveck <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] High-priority items for discussion at IETF 105, take 2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:19:11 -0000

Hmm, I also asked for presentation time….

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 12:23 PM, David Noveck <> 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