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

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Spencer wrote:
> > Hi.  It is time that we update our charter
> 
> Yes we need to update the charter.  
> 
> > to determine what is next for the working group.
> 
> I don't see us making a big decision like that in Prague.
> 
> I expect us to continue the kind of work we have been doing, with
> the charter updated to include it
> 
> > Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email.
> 
> He nudged back.  It appears you guys have two different conceptions
> of what "take that on" means and I'm not prepared to referee.
> 
> > In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items.
> 
> I'm sure we'll do that
> 
> Beepy wrote:
> 
> > Let's whack it on email 
> 
> I've tried to begin the whacking process below.  Comments and alternate proposed drafts are welcome.
> 
> > and then put on agenda for fine tuning at Prague. 
> 
> We can  discuss this in Prague, if we have time., but we are not going to come up with a final text in a half-hour or even two hours.
> 
> I think the goal for the Prague discussion has to be confirmation of an agreement on an outline previously agreed upon and a time line for submission of the new charter.   After that it is up to you and the Spencers to make it happen.
> 
> Draft Charter for Working Group (Ready for further whacking)
> NFS Version 4 is the IETF standard for file sharing. To maintain NFS Version 4's utility and currency, the working group is chartered to maintain the existing NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, NFSv4.2, Federated Namespace, and related specifications. In addition, extensions will be developed, as necessary, to correct problems with the protocols as currently specified, to accommodate needed file system semantics, and to make significant performance improvements.  Finally, deployment guidance will be collected for deployments of the NFSv4 FedFS implementations and their interaction with integration with new user authentication models.
> 
> Maintenance
> 
> The working group has found that as NFSv4 implementations mature and deployments continue, clarifications to existing RFCs are needed. These clarifications assist vendors in delivering quality and interoperable implementations. The working group is chartered with the vetting of the issues and determining correctness of submitted errata. In addition, some areas may need more concentrated work to correct the specifications already published or to deal with unanticipated interactions between features In the cases in which required changes are inappropriate for the errata system, the working group will assist in publication of best practices RFCs or of RFCs that provide editorial modification or technical updates to original RFCs.
> 
> Extension
> 
> The NFSv4 protocol is designed to allow extension by the addition of new operations or new attributes, the creation of minor versions, and the definition of new pNFS mapping types.  The working group will discuss proposals for such extensions and assure they have adequate technical review including discussion of their interaction with existing features before adopting them as working group items and helping to draft specification documents.

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.


> Performance Challenges
> 
> The increase of network bandwidths and the reduction of latencies associated with network traffic and access to persistent storage have created challenges for remote file access protocols which need to meet increasingly demanding performance expectations.  Some work already done in this area includes the respecification of RPC-over-RDMA Version One and the pNFS SCSI layout.  It is likely that further work in this area will be required.  This might take the form of further RPC-over-RDMA versions, adaptation of the SCSI layout to NVMe, or the development of an RDMA-oriented pNFS layout.  The working group needs to discuss these alternatives, and possibly others, and develop the most promising ones.

/layout/layout type

Is work on respecifying RPC-over-RDMA Version One considered
maintenance or performance? My impression from Dallas was
this was maintenance of existing specifications.

Where does Andy's multi-path work fit? Does it need explicit
mention in the WG charter?


> RFC5664bis
> 
> Propose that this be terminated with extreme prejudice
> 
> NFSv4.2
> 
> This is already done so it might as well be whacked.
> 
> NFSv4 Multi-Domain Access for FedFS
> 
> A lot has happened in this area but there is probably work still to be done.  My suggestion is that Andy propose a replacement section, if necessary

Last week I allowed two long-standing personal I-Ds related to
FedFS to expire because there have been no deployments. There
is a single known implementation (Linux), which is unfinished
partly because the Linux filesystem community is not interested
in making junctions a first-class filesystem object, and because
the use of LDAP in FedFS makes it difficult to implement and
awkward to deploy.

We are considering removing FedFS support from new versions of
Red Hat-based Linux (Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL).

Does the WG want to continue pursuing FedFS, if only in
maintenance mode? Is Andy's multi-domain work able to continue
if FedFS is removed from the docket?


> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Brian Pawlowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.
> 
> Here is the current charter:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/charter/
> 
> Let's whack it on email and then put on agenda for fine tuning at Prague. 
> 
> Our AD will weigh in on what is appropriate. Last time we did this I believe we focused on things actively being worked on (staffed) with some agreement rather than creating new work items that had not been yet discussed.
> 
> beepy
> 
> On May 8, 2017, at 12:30 PM, spencer shepler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi.  It is time that we update our charter to determine what is next for the working group.
> 
> Beepy said that he would take that on so I am nudging him in email.
> 
> In the mean time, please comment here on suggested charter items.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

--
Chuck Lever