Re: [nfsv4] Is it time for a -00 for the IETF96 wg meeting draft agenda?

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:27 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> First a warning.  I'm going to be discussing schedules.
> 
> Now for people who are have not hit delete and are still reading, my answer to the above question is "Yes, we need it soon"
> 
> Let me provide some background here:
> 	• Spencer originally wanted to get a start on a draft agenda by 5/20.  While people did provide information about things they might talk about, there were not specific talk proposals with titles and durations that Spencer could use as the basis for an early draft agenda .  In any case, that target date went by nearly four weeks ago.
> 	• The critical target date is 7/7 by which time an actual agenda has to be provided.  Given the discussion that has already gone on regarding things that might talked about (by me, Chuck, and Christoph) it is pretty clear that some sort of draft can be provided by that date, given that we have the option, since it is a "draft", of making needed changes later.
> 	• If we want an agenda that truly reflects the working group's needs, we need to have a draft that we can discuss and possibly update before the official draft agenda is ready for submission.  Given that the target date is about three weeks off, I think we need to have that -00 for the draft within the next week.
> I'm going to propose a couple of talks below.  I think it makes sense for anyone with a talk proposal to add theirs to the list.  If those fit in 150 minutes, we have our -00.  If not, we may need some working group discussion to get to a -00.  While I expect the working group to try to accommodate late-arriving proposals, I'd hope that people would get their proposals in as soon as possible. 
> 
> Anyway, my proposed talks would be:
> 	• A discussion about the NFSv4 extension stuff, NFSv4 Extension Paradigm: What Next?.  The documents to be discussed would be draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-04 and draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-extension-00 (TBD).  The goal was to resolve current disagreements about whether we should go on as we have, with the existing standards-track document, convert the existing working-group document to be informational, or to split the document into standards-track and informational documents.  I'd allocate 30 minutes for this.  
> 	• A presentation about currently proposed extensions to RPC-over-RDMA Version Two, Updating RPC-over-RDMA: Next steps. The documents to be discussed would be draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-xcharext-00, draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtissues-00, and draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rpcrdma-rtrext-00.  The goal here would be to present and discuss current extension proposals, see what the working group response is, and decide where we want to go next in this area.  I'd allocate 30 minutes for this.

As an introduction to the second talk above, I can give
an introduction to rpcrdma-version-two in about 10
minutes.

I can also give a presentation soliciting input and
answering questions about the current status and end-game
for rfc5666bis, rpcrdma-bidirection, and rfc5667bis.
That would take about 10 minutes.


--
Chuck Lever