Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 07:05 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CFA1200B3 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:05:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTiOY9o7A1Rz for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:05:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E692120088 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:05:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id 94so13591593oty.8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:05:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yF/QJq/Jt+7oGX8SaM35G11ROuBpr89IVSPWcViv4Uw=; b=lUBkT66/Ud3a36DWHXkUOmwhcYILdDHzbilpUJJ+8M7nZxsDdg5l2YrMzpJIHKwTuu diq2SwMR+mYp+9iXDni40dNDCXLcRVVAVr/GYbg1mFxev6/J9P2YQ0THMxeVhYL1M38s N44YiSYsmFPbJRCSD8sJAHh3jblNsQPk4jLLdnwEwRN+tUgKQm56wuvH86x6UoMeVKhC miu/QSOjgHv7XKMemObwN3aPewEMsQ6x3ACysbw9S/RbsHPwwXp39H1MSIlPhgqvxIMI qgf88EQPxJrZ1RuRCZSuu1SG3x5oYrsJ4rGmlk/RVtb7xMaNAdJ2dRCZpTDXGPrz+feU 47Ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yF/QJq/Jt+7oGX8SaM35G11ROuBpr89IVSPWcViv4Uw=; b=oxMe6aXx9ZTSF3IYNRpsWmFl+JO7X2rY6YpRybIvEdmjy48EZzSvBuLw1BZUPu/OSH tahq2q4So9+us1G7C+A6XXlFf6pwwqck/CAwS4q9e+gfE58tVpVNxiuchoViDj5r3sHB AQ008oIlcKW5BJLjpDjaOVCK0JhYVpwfNiQQJjn0hO4rjlGrLoZoJ54Dp6QlCJBQPIg6 Z0dO2ya5nNxhxy67c6j9QjsMeeHavYV4BFzbdJ/hriorg1T7JTthAU02Xe1rwmYnYzXX 6LKZtx0wc+WQiIvHmBxPSjrFJS6Jg8YQYVux4wIfaLSil8rJeBYECGO8SqYLfAzMoFBY CCpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBStFl8n7NgzaRSsXPmyYxrwQQIIpdGokz0dOrfjn0Lju7wyqw elUxWWVUA2YDN5CBOG7wwtLXb24kpjyl3JshLcY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzkTj8KXpdfPRJfrOGH7WnyId/+CjzHiRaETgaXfiUJmnzge4FEYqvEBT7Bz4cIC/4FaZzDSRZWuLW/5uE9leA=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:721c:: with SMTP id u28mr21178173otj.359.1574060727587; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:05:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30A75E5B-D2D1-4C28-A6DC-33F104E8DDD3@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <30A75E5B-D2D1-4C28-A6DC-33F104E8DDD3@oracle.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:05:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jcDbz2qQxuS0yNLEoF5C9jhnm4QcqM6qA-iyqxYvwm=sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085d7ab05979992da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/xPPGEEn5ZCF1rc4C6z-bc8ms2Vc>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:05:30 -0000
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 1:52 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > Reminder: IETF 107 is March 22 - 27 in Vancouver, CA. > > In a recent thread, Spencer Shepler said: > > I would appreciate it if the WG spend some time in building a draft > agenda so that content and schedule can be built. > The draft agenda will be needed about two weeks before the meeting, i.e. about four months from now. Still, I think it makes sense to start the planning process, as you have done, early although, given that things may change between now and then, we want to retain some flexibility/agility. I think we should plan based on the framework that Magnus has suggested: one session devoted to the working group's current agenda and a second about things for future consideration. As far as the first session, I would need some time to discuss matters related to rfc5661bis and related documents. I'm guessing 30-40 minutes will be needed. As far as possible contributions to the second session, this is kind of early, but I expect people to come up with interesting ideas. For my own part, I'll be sending out a proposal for some topics (about 20 minutes worth) in the next few weeks. > I can start by listing the items I'm working on and what kind > of meeting resources IMO might be needed for discussion. I'm > going to assume that we will avoid "status reporting" here, > and strive to use the meeting time mainly for interactive > discussion of open questions. > I anticipate there will be some need for status-related time in the first session. Let's say five minutes. I hope we will be hearing from those with active wg documents and/or milestones. The critical areas requiring wg consideration of status are for those documents not otherwise represented. > - rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data: Hoping this will be published by March. > Me too. In any event, no meeting time needed for this document. > I sure hope not, given that the document was finished in June. > - rpc-tls: I'm hoping this document will be in post-WG publication > process in March. I anticipate there will be no need for meeting > time for this work, unless something changes significantly. > Part of the 5661bis discussion will be about security but I think the role of rpc-tls will be as a base for what it is possible to do in a revised v4 security framework. > - rpcrdma-version-two: The protocol is nearing feature completion. > I anticipate this may be in WGLC in March, but it might need > further discussion. Let's say 15 minutes on this one. > Sounds about right. Note that this document also has implications for the new security framework, just as rpc-tls does. > - integrity-measurement: I want to have an IMA metadata format > document in draft form for this meeting. Let's say 15 minutes > for this discussion. That's reasonable although it is possible to not get a real resolution no matter how much time we spend :-( In addition, we could schedule a phone call > or two before March to get through the objections to the current > document. > I think we should do that and use the meeting time to make sure that everyone is ok with whatever resolution was reached previously. > > -- > Chuck Lever > > > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >
- [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning David Noveck