Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Announcement: Interim NFSv4 Working Group meeting (Ju ne 4th)

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 08:00:16 -0700

It is clearly possible to use the time.  My concern is 
whether it will be used productively.  If someone is 
going to produce suggestions (i.e. a document laying 
out at least a suggested approach) that can form the 
basis for a discussion for each of the items, then maybe 
we have a couple of hours worth, total.  I don't see there 
being more than 15 minutes of productive discussion for 
any of these items, no matter what.  Is the idea that we 
are going to do the design during the meeting?  My view 
is that that doesn't work.  I think the point of the 
meeting is to discuss what issues need to be addressed, 
for people to discuss the approach at a high level, and 
then have people commit themselves to doing the actual 
work.  And the time for the actual work is a lot more 
than will fit within a meeting.  

Migration and replication is a case in point.  This is 
about where it was a year ago.  The fs_locations stuff is 
in the spec and no servers and clients have implemented it. 
We discuss it all we want, but we have to write some code 
and test it to make progress.  The replication and migration 
protocol is even farther off, but what is there to discuss? 
Things are exactly where they were the last time we discussed 
this.  The point is not to pick on Rob.  He has lots of 
demands on his time and I haven't noticed anyone else 
(including me) rushing in to fill the breach.  I'm just not 
up for another discussion of the subject that leads to 
no result.  If we want to spend some time bemoaning the 
situation and putting moral pressure on people to sign up 
to move this along, then either five minutes will do it 
and we'll get some commitments, or we won't.  Spending 
an hour talking about it won't do anything. 

If we want to spend eight hours on making progress on v4, 
let's spend two hours in a meeting and six hours in small 
groups actually doing design and writing documents, or testing 
implementations, or writing code to support the existing 
migration stuff.  Or we could spend the six hours going out 
drinking.  That would help v4 a lot more than a gargantuan 
meeting.  I'm serious. 

OK.  I've done my ranting.  I need to do something productive 
like review and comment on Andy's document on directory 
delegations.  So I promise to have comments out by Monday. 

I withdraw my constitutional objections (I don't think the 
Federal Judiciary would have entertained a habeas corpus 
petition from a working group meeting prisoner anyway) and 
make this a matter for the democratic process.  My vote is 
for a two-hour meeting, with three hours being the absolute 
max.  Maybe the best way to do this is just to vote on a long 
vs. a short meeting. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: William A.(Andy) Adamson [mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 10:06 AM 
To: Noveck, Dave 
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Announcement: Interim NFSv4 Working Group meeting 
(June 4th) 

maybe i'm wrong, but i think we will use close to the 8 hours. i guess we 
could start at 10:00 am, but i wouldn't want to run out of time! maybe 
creating an agenda would be the answer. 

besides the WG issues, we have the following subjects 

ACLs and Modes 
POSIX, NFSv4, Windows ACL mappings 
Multiple name to ID mappings with multiple security flavors 

minor versioning: 
----------------- 
Directory Delegation 
plus others 

the work Mike is proposing 
RPCSEC and Delegation Callback Paths 

we could also talk about 

Migration and Replication 

other agenda items? 

> Can we get a little more specificity on the time, so people 
> can plan flights etc.  My understanding is that you are not 
> really intending an 8-hour meeting.  There's all sorts of 
> Constitutional issues with that (Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 
> Imprisonment without Just Cause, etc.) 

well, we will provide lunch!! 

-->Andy 

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4