Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> Our usual criterion for considering "wacky" ideas is a personal
> I-D.

Personal I-D's also discuss non-wacky ideas,  The wackiness of
any particular idea is a subjective judgment that different people will
make differently and that will change over time, with working
group discussion.

> I'm OK with placing these ideas in a "requires I-D"
> category.

I don't anticipate that the list I produce will be organized accoring
to categories of that sort.  In any case, I expect that it will contain:

   - Ideas for which there is an I-D and those for which there is no I-D
   (yet).
   - Ideas that I consider "wacky",but I'll try to filter out those that
   the entire working group is liable to find wacky.  In any case, subsequent
   workig group discussion could result in elimination of most of those.

> I'd like to see these items and any clarifications discussed
> on-list

I'll make sure to copy the list on any discussion.

> first

Before what?,

> or (preferably) in I-D form.

That's certainly preferabe but my ability to get other people to write
documents, or even read them, is quite limited.

> Perhaps that's a
> high bar,

It certainly is.

> but the WG deserves a clear problem statement and
> explanation of a proposed solution, so that it's members can
> evaluate new ideas fairly.

The question is at what point they actually need that.  I think it
is appropriate for the working group to insist on an I-D before embarking
on a working-group document and lately it has been doing that.

With regard to expectations for inclusion on the potential milestone
list, I don't think it makes sense to make the bar that high.  Doing that
would filter out too many "wacky" ideas before the working group has
had an opportunity to decide that they were not so wacky after all

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Dave-
>
> > On Aug 21, 2017, at 11:45 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have only very minor quibbles with any of this content, none worth
> > > bringing up.
> >
> > If they are not brought up, then the draft I send to the chairs and ads
> > cannot include them.  Please make sure that you make me aware of
> > issues that need to be addressed, even if they might seem minor right
> > now.
>
> Perhaps I should have said "No objections."
>
>
> > > I suggested privately, and would like to bring up on the list, that
> > > it would also be helpful to have a repository for our "stretch goals"
> > > and "almost ready" or "wacky" ideas (thanks Bill Baker for that term).
> >
> > Those are three different categories.  What I'm thinking about is
> > a list of "potential goals", which could include things that might
> > become goals if there were a person to take on the work and provide
> > a target date.
>
> Thanks, looking forward to seeing it!
>
>
> > It could also include things that are not quite well-defined
> > enough for us to be sure about what document might really be done,
> > and ideas of various degrees of "wackiness", although we will try to
> > avoid things that the working group thinks are not worth considering.
>
> Our usual criterion for considering "wacky" ideas is a personal
> I-D. I'm OK with placing these ideas in a "requires I-D"
> category.
>
>
> > > It could help create an institutional memory, along with the mailing
> > > list and IETF meeting notes (hint hint). We obviously have some worthy
> > > ideas, as noted by Tom's "Next steps" presentation during IETF 99,
> > > even if they aren't completely formed.
> >
> > I will be producing that list, but it will take a while.  Maybe by the
> end of
> > September.
> >
> > I have looked at Tom's presentation and there are a number of items that
> > could be potential goals, although none is really "wacky".  In some of
> the
> > cases, the presentation isn't clear about what specific things the
> working group
> > might do to further these ideas, but I can consult with Tom and Trond to
> get the
> > necessary clarity.
>
> I'd like to see these items and any clarifications discussed
> on-list first, or (preferably) in I-D form. Perhaps that's a
> high bar, but the WG deserves a clear problem statement and
> explanation of a proposed solution, so that it's members can
> evaluate new ideas fairly.
>
>
> > > Can you post subsequent revisions of the Charter and milestone list
> > > only in ASCII text? That also makes it possible to simply hit "Reply"
> > > and respond narrowly to individual parts of the text. Thanks!
> >
> > I'll do that, since the IETF seems to be stuck in the last century.
> There
> > might somewhere be a plan to bring the IETF into the twenty-first
> century,
> > but, from what I've seen, 2099 might be too aggressive a target date :-(.
>
> It's not just the IETF.
>
> There are some on the list who cannot open a .pptx document.
> There are some who refuse to, out of principal. There are
> some who are behind corporate firewalls that discard e-mail
> attachments as a policy, or that place size restrictions on
> in-bound e-mail.
>
> My own interest is archival, but I think we should strive for
> inclusiveness.
>
>
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Happy eclipse day, Dave -
> >
> > > On Aug 17, 2017, at 7:35 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > <NearFinalMilestoneDraft.pptx>
> >
> > I have only very minor quibbles with any of this content, none worth
> > bringing up. This captures the bulk of what is ready to move forward,
> > and keeps the rate of publication roughly the same as its been for
> > the past five years. It's a good representation of the work before
> > us and the intent described in the proposed new Charter.
> >
> > I suggested privately, and would like to bring up on the list, that
> > it would also be helpful to have a repository for our "stretch goals"
> > and "almost ready" or "wacky" ideas (thanks Bill Baker for that term).
> > It could help create an institutional memory, along with the mailing
> > list and IETF meeting notes (hint hint). We obviously have some worthy
> > ideas, as noted by Tom's "Next steps" presentation during IETF 99,
> > even if they aren't completely formed.
> >
> > Speaking of institutional memory, I note that .pptx attachments do
> > not seem to be archived by either of the IETF's mailing list archive
> > tools. In one case, the attachment doesn't appear at all, and in the
> > other it is archived as a compressed file that doesn't seem to
> > re-inflate to anything useful.
> >
> > Can you post subsequent revisions of the Charter and milestone list
> > only in ASCII text? That also makes it possible to simply hit "Reply"
> > and respond narrowly to individual parts of the text. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Lever
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>