Re: [nfsv4] IETF101 (or Bakeathon) in March.

David Noveck <> Sat, 13 January 2018 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7ED126E3A for <>; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_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 5gZTRF29_4OO for <>; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A441124D6C for <>; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c17so8529829iod.1 for <>; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KBNcBFQcTv6WKj3MohRcORX/314uD21W4NAOhmvTStU=; b=aWNBqGB24fYKCM3KXf4Wm/ReRMrWEJUBUtZERBEllZ7JCL0RLZoZ5lkkzLQCbzPVam jTNxlHqbyo6p0MqK0PWeLYXK0r5xyui95p1bpwKzvBrGFzwOdWgC+MoJncSlX7OBgnoC iWZdM7eSk5ht+e1qV50Tw/fRksrENT38A68ibeL1qIaoXzgIDUnDX4BiYWA0GEyOcbb+ 9PmfQ4MFZMFv3Xz98kyLs50ZS+MLXWazSyw8lkFNmeDEnFu8fzXiv/hxhFxh34VNhAtx m9QfSecj43wYWHayRTVblr05Wbx/V8bcIcaFGjG7Jx741OTIukw3hmC2+lKfR7x9TTD6 YomA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KBNcBFQcTv6WKj3MohRcORX/314uD21W4NAOhmvTStU=; b=MicqfiZqNRJD8Ifpq2o7de3f1X8IeqN/vHwy6lJ2otIz3HDRGBTo8HefGFyfUsbXGt p2YrH2X6bCJ51fv/7cCfQFttnaNKtdATQasSnuRYefzR1kUTbEXJP0Lcfv1O+u6xSgfd qlOAXbOw6v24Zto7DpQ41XCTdQAjeqvJl77ke8yvl5ETycF1EVm4TYyjpD9avPeqKkv9 S0MrGw37+0sSnGYVFX2WOv46wWx96zO3W1Y2cEZCgK5HTmRFERX/ig6n6/1EowN05sLH OyVhhVGc3RECKbQpj00Azp2wrf0sm9c1ohYL1UMxmU68hpuNqTMCwuv5q7MoM+ySgYlc LU0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJyzG5k66I43s3M6f3EDjmvUnRdnT6CRI+fFZ+gwCGMEt2LLCMf N1LGWU2wCVDDClUG7vF2ne0fBRk3T5nrU4BfGIg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoueDMZDyFD+WqsRz+p1YPTn33X6mEzkE98yluR6aeAJ+6L1zQQfq4KRvkyKznclg0lSweUzyDO0/se/MsnPSro=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 12mr27396080iof.54.1515841387442; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:03:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:03:07 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Chuck Lever <>
Cc: NFSv4 <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ef6346f35840562a65307"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF101 (or Bakeathon) in March.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:03:11 -0000

> we seem to be on track to meet our
> milestones for 2018,

You and I have submitted our documents, but there has been little
comment yet.   That could be because our documents are in such
great shape :-), but I think a discussion would be helpful to let us see
where stuff really is, in term of working group review. No need for it
to be face-to-face, however.

> except for "pNFS on NVMe SCSI". I don't
> feel a meeting is required to unstick this.

I don't know what is required or useful to unstick this.  I tried sending an
email to Christoph and that didn't help.  Any discussion of this, whether
face-to-face or not, would not have the goal of unsticking this.  It is now
clear that June 2018 is no longer an achievable date for final submission
of this, so people need to decide if we can arrive at an achievable new date
or we can decide, with Spencer D's concurrence, to drop the milestone.

> The flex files documents are also progressing.

One of them (draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files) is, but it faces a problem
because of its
normative reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types.  As things now stand
it is likely to wait a number of months for that reference to be resolved to
be published.  The latter document has been waiting for a writeup for about
five months, rather than the week or so that was originally promised.

I don't see a working group meeting as a good way to address this issue.
I think Tom and Spencer need to address this issue themselves.  If Tom
he needs the working group's help (or Spencer D.'s) he can ask for it.

> Are there other issues that might benefit from a face-to-face meeting in
two months?

There might be, but the more Important question is whether we are
with having no face-to-face meeting for the next six months.   Normally I
be, but I feel that a testing event is more important and we can live
without a
meeting for the next six months, albeit somewhat uncomfortably.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chuck Lever <>

> > On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:39 PM, David Noveck <> wrote:
> >
> > As some of you may have heard, there is a possibility of a Bakeathon
> event in late March (in Ann Arbor).  I don't think the planned dates are
> actually overlapping but they are close enough that very few people will
> want to attend both if they are both held in March.  I know I would not and
> would probably go to Ann Arbor if both were held in March.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I still think it important for the working group to have
> some sort of discussion of pending things we are working on so we might
> well think about one or more conferences calls that we could schedule in
> that approximate time frame.   I would like us to discuss next steps for
> the nvme-pnfs work and for the draft-ietf-{mv0-trunking,mv1-msns}-update
> documents.
> >
> > What do other people think?  Is there anyone who would attend IETF101 in
> London if there were a Bakeathon scheduled for the last week in March?  If
> not, we might as well decide right now not to meet at IETF101 and figure
> out how to address our needs for discussion in that time frame in another
> fashion.
> Another way to view it: we seem to be on track to meet our
> milestones for 2018, except for "pNFS on NVMe SCSI". I don't
> feel a meeting is required to unstick this. The flex files
> documents are also progressing.
> Are there other issues that might benefit from a face-to-face
> meeting in two months?
> --
> Chuck Lever
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list