Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jeCv89mCo2=-F5mFED4xJ_Dfoz88ythgw8P_gmQh=Sm-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:08:58 -0400
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A66FD34-C6D5-47B2-A300-D99DD021F2D7@oracle.com>
References: <CADaq8jcAn_VAZCO=B_VbAZGoOK2LYB9n3FEr4zwnwC1MWL2yjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3BFF8A11-6052-4172-8635-D735D1D309A3@oracle.com>
 <CADaq8jeCv89mCo2=-F5mFED4xJ_Dfoz88ythgw8P_gmQh=Sm-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/xXKOHXlhCNvz55FInx3vzxfyuJ8>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review
Precedence: list

Hi Dave-

> On Aug 21, 2017, at 11:45 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> > I have only very minor quibbles with any of this content, none worth
> > bringing up.=20
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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=20=

> 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.
>=20
> I will be producing that list, but it will take a while.  Maybe by the =
end of
> September.
>=20
> 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=20
> 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!
>=20
> 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,=20
> 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 <chuck.lever@oracle.com> =
wrote:
> Happy eclipse day, Dave -
>=20
> > On Aug 17, 2017, at 7:35 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> =
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:
> >       =E2=80=A2 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.
> >       =E2=80=A2 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.
> >       =E2=80=A2 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>
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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!
>=20
>=20
> --
> Chuck Lever
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

--
Chuck Lever