Subject: Proposed charter addition for NFS Version 4 Working Group

From: Brian Pawlowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:14:27 -0800 (PST)

Per AD request the meeting in Atlanta (working on minutes now), I have
attached proposed text to add to charter of the NFS Version 4 working
group to include work related to the RDDP work recently started at the
IETF:

   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rddp-charter.html

with the intention of avoiding strict serialization of work within the
V4 group with the RDDP effort.

There were some brief talks on using RDDP/RDMA techniques at an NFS
conference recently that can be found here:

   http://www.nfsconf.com/pres02/callaghan.pdf
   http://www.nfsconf.com/pres02/emulex.pdf
   http://www.nfsconf.com/pres02/wittle.pdf

Several people have expressed interest to pursue this work that are not
currently involved in any of the migration/replication discussions, so
I don't see this as interfering with our current charter tasks.

Our current charter is:

   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rddp-charter.html

Feedback requested.

beepy

------------ Proposed text for charter addition ----------------

o RDMA/RDDP enabling
The performance benefit of RDMA/RDDP transports in NFS-related
applications, by reducing the overhead of data and metadata exchange,
has been demonstrated sufficiently such that the working group will
pursue in parallel enabling NFS and RPC over the transport defined by
the RDDP working group.  The WG will define a problem statement,
specify requirements and extensions to NFSv4 and RPC to enable such
use.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:03:21 -0500

On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 13:14 America/Montreal, Brian Pawlowski 

> group to include work related to the RDDP work recently started at the

I would say that we should not add this to our charter.
It would lead to more complexity in NFSv4 that we don't need
to have (on a protocol spec that some of us already consider
too complex).

Ran

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:40:51 -0600

> to have (on a protocol spec that some of us already consider

If the work can be done at the RPC layer as to not disturb NFSv4,
would you have the same opinion?

BTW: If NFSv4 changes are desired/required, they would be of the form
of a minor version and NOT a change to the base protocol.

-- 
Spencer

---

From: Brian Pawlowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:52:27 -0800 (PST)

My apologies on that one point - I meant to at least bound the work to
minor revision (at most) to V4 while allowing sub-group to explore
alternatives (in light of problem statement and requirements preceding
design) within the space of RPC and minor rev of V4 (which is where the
industry experience has been playing in what to NFS V4 are proofs of
concept).