Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently schedule for Wednesday afternoon

Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently schedule for Wednesday afternoon - 1-3:30pm

Tom Haynes <tom.haynes@oracle.com> Tue, 06 July 2010 17:44 UTC

Message-ID: <4C336B7C.5000001@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:44:28 -0500
From: Tom Haynes <tom.haynes@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100214 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noveck_David@emc.com
References: <F7E65964-7ED7-4152-B6B9-BC5A8C037CEF@gmail.com> <1278194481.2808.9.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <op.vfbl3rx9rwwil4@sfaibish1.corp.emc.com> <AA532B82-0918-47A4-B27F-438B43164EE8@oracle.com><op.vfb6fqyyrwwil4@sfaibish1.corp.emc.com> <4C335C77.1030004@gmail.com> <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8001A4A34C@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8001A4A34C@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently schedule for Wednesday afternoon - 1-3:30pm
Precedence: list

On 07/ 6/10 12:01 PM, Noveck_David@emc.com wrote:
> Making progress on v4.2 sounds sensible but I don't see allocating a large portion of 85 minutes to what might turn out to be an unstructured discussion of possible additions to NFSv4.2 (assuming that we are now OK as far as this being on the working group's charter).

Which we should clarify.

I think Spencer did that in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07833.html

>   We could certainly use up the time but I don't see that more than 20 minutes would be useful in trying to come up with a proposed "final" list for group discussion.
>
> If people have proposed additions, I should think that they would be able to put together a few slides and propose it as part of the meeting, before this 20-minute session.  I think that that session should be filtering things already proposed and not accumulating last-minute proposals.
>
>
>    

I thought we had a current proposal:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eisler-nfsv4-minorversion-2-requirements-02.txt

And I seem to recall Mike asking us to approve that in Anaheim.

[nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently schedule … Spencer
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Trond Myklebust
[nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DELEGAT… Jwu-Shyan Tarng
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Sorin Faibish
Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Rick Macklem
Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Trond Myklebust
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Sorin Faibish
Re: [nfsv4] NFS V4 OPEN delegation with CLAIM_DEL… Noveck_David
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Dean Hildebrand
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Noveck_David
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Dean Hildebrand
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Everhart, Craig
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… David P. Quigley
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… sfaibish
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes
Re: [nfsv4] IETF 78 NFSv4 session currently sched… Tom Haynes