[nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 11:35 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
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 B6ABD132113 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] 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 9cvLgiz3akb5 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 855E71204DA for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g71so21965195ioe.5 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zAwAHlpC5Fk8M6dg3pYuyjQ4kEOI6UYNbWz75vwM4fY=; b=LQZxS9yjYdRkcBc/nCJ3w4MowCZaMORQpcQ75RM6PzXHZLkXBIWdaguzUco8dTrkfF x/VF/xju002CCVz0FZXYQAyYj0y6XBlS8h4lImGLJ75U+52hyReGXZyNX4wVPEc5Gmgl B8lBgEl6hvp6qWshG6xu5k7y1yJ3/ZdjiUav278FUo+2rXEtjqOGEhcH6ksGePkpvPF3 7UwJhQ6uCoi7erMnHgyjQKiewwV6Pj6pbU36NaGLHBhQZHusGRzWMW9Wpg9gFQkmdgh4 1Mb2o39Pm7J1yypG13zDLFkcgCsl1OcxabZx94lX5Tj3C7/M8B0YvniUkdNGCfmvXPv3 2pwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zAwAHlpC5Fk8M6dg3pYuyjQ4kEOI6UYNbWz75vwM4fY=; b=WzglhNXCIKWGD1vJtO5eXUpWPqgm4zsJy0vpjLIC2p4MUC6d4XkobgzVHjcoqztzLq x7Be25gyt9NpiLJ9sf9GXFJFpMFwWMKLjPpJQxteAdBghDEh0eH5BTpzHTvXr20TxtmB 6UR8BJ+EmtyK4oTQniUZamBcUMmoJlixFtp88tLlpE0mIMjvHnk4tYcSB/TVi2M0Jwk3 Yg/mNRr4skHhVaZbyYVjjNQoVHu/Jx5EiFagRR38OudyggC5oSGGR2cUA2RX3bKs4Vj1 SnhZkrQZycZXmbPp7GpE43te9LuBEdBMLD7zn6h84G8ZSdKMZtIYkWAWQOkgvA8amCgr 4Irg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jCvlETxqP3S6lrpKsPMoJ662llFL5FauKKizZLyWRx0OOcADhx 5+ovN3wIeivee7sVzECazJbhj6e2vw==
X-Received: by 10.107.50.136 with SMTP id y130mr4341254ioy.70.1502969738518; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.142.72 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:35:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jcAn_VAZCO=B_VbAZGoOK2LYB9n3FEr4zwnwC1MWL2yjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="001a11447aca5f9e2f0556f16915"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/dOhC1nJRl-QgySN1keQ4iwsfh6g>
Subject: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:35:43 -0000
We've previously discussed and reviewed a proposal for a new working group charter. The only thing missing was a set of proposed milestones. Since that time, I've been discussing this subject with the authors of active working group dcuments and I-D's that appear likely to become working group documents (except for Benny HaLevy who seems to no longer be active in the working group). The draft of what we (Chuck, Tom, Christoph and I) have come up with is attached, so that the working group can review it. I had assumed that others in the working group did not have any proposed milestones that they would like to include and work on. If I was wrong about that, please bring any proposed new milestones to the attention of the working group as part of this review. If you have an idea for a milestone which is not quite ready for this list, hold that thought. There is a mechanism for the working group to create new milestones later, once the charter is approved. It would be good if the working group could review this by Friday 8/25, so that we can make any necessary adjustments and provide the chairs and ads with a consolidated charter proposal including the stuff I sent to them on 7/31 but with the milestones included. If anyone thinks theey need more time to do this review, please let me know. Most of the items on this list are not yet working group documents but I hope I haven't included anything that people would object to becoming working group documents. If you do object or have issues with any of these becoming working group douments, we need to address that as part of the milestone review. There are some notes below about the documents associated with the proposed milestones, in time order. Please let me know if you need any clarification. First are documents associated with the 2018 milestones: The 3/2018 milestone is for the working group document deriving from draft-hellwig-nfsv4-scsi-layout-nvme. This document was discussed at IETF99 and there was general agreement that it would become standards-track. There were a number of structural changes proposed at that time and I assume Christoph is dealing with those before formally requesting working group status for this document. The 6/2018-10/2018 milestones all concern documents relating to changes for trunking and state migration. I presented slides about these at IETF99. If these are not easily available, please let me know. There are four milestones and three documents as follows: - The 6/2018 milestone concerns draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues. It has become clear that fixing migration and trunking are inherently related so -13 has been retitled to reflect this fact. If people have the time, I'd appreciate reviews of this document to make sure that we adress issue now, rather than in a rush at WGLC. Although this document is informational, there will be a number of standards-track documents that derive from it. - The 8/2018 milestone concerns a document addressing trunking discovery in NFSv4.0. This document addresses the same issues that had been dealt with in Andy's previous trunking discovery document although the treatment is significantly different. In the IETF99 slides, the prospective I-D on which this will be based is referred to as draft-adamson-nfsv4-mv0-truunking-update. Since then, Andy has retired and his co-author Chuck Lever has agreed to submit draft-cel--nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update, based on the work Andy has already done. I think Chuck will work on submitting this as soon as he has had an opprtuunity to catch his breath after completing the work on the last of the documents associated with RPC-over-RDMA version 1. I expect to be a co-author of the trunking update document and will work to keep the trunking discussion for both minor versions consistent. - The two 10/2018 milestones will most likely be satisfied by the same docment, specfically the working group document to come, based on draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update. I've previously promised to submit that I-D by the end of August and expect to be able to do that. These are listed as two separate milestones because the working group has not made any decision yet about how to go forward to address v4.1 issues with regard to trunking and state migration. If the working group decides that these will be addressed in a single document, as I believe is best, these two milestones can be coalesced. One possible occasion for the working group to make this decision is when a proposal is made to convert this document to working-group status. Another is to address this as part of the milestone review. In any case, there is no need to rush this decision since we could maintain these as two milestones indefinitely. Now let's look at the documents for the 2019 milestones: The first 1Q2019 milestone is for a WG document deriving from draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-msg. Although that document's current proposed status is standards-track, Chuck has decided that the milestone is for an anicipated informational document. The working group can discuss the issue of the document's status as part of the milestone review or when Chuck formally asks to turn this into a working group document. I understandthat there may be controversy about the issue, but I don''t anticipte difficulty arrving at a consensus everyone can live with. The other 1Q2019 milestone is for a WG document deriving from draft-hellwig-nfsv4-rdma-layout. As the discussion at IETF99 showed, there are still significant issues to resolve before this document will be complete. I think we will want to identify those as part of the milestone review, but it is not necesssary to address them now, or even when the document becomes a WG document. For those who think that Christoph's date is optimistic/aggressive, I agree but feel that given the guidance we have gotten from Spencer D., optimistic milestones are OK. If, on the other hand, you feel that Christoph has a date which is unachievable/delusional, we can discuss that issue as part of milestone review. If we do push that date off and Christoph does get this done by 3/31/2019, then he gets to tell all of us, "I told you so." The 3Q2019 milestone, is for a WG document deriving from draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two, of which I am a co-author. There are still some technical issues to resolve, principally about the credit mechanism, but those do not need to resolved as part of the milestone review. However, they do need to be identified so that we can go on to resolve them as the document is refined further over the next two years.
- [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… Spencer Shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group rev… David Noveck