Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF NFSv4 WG Design Team Meeting - March 29th (different meeting from 3/15)

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:44:53 -0500

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:13:44AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > so you will need to RSVP.
> 
> Consider this my response (in the affirmative).
> 
> In any case, I have two slide sets in preparation.
> 
>    - The first is an introduction to the subject and identifies the two
>    likely extensions that have been mentioned as initial extension candidates,
>    mode_umask and xattr.  I don't address the details of these as I expect
>    their proponents to give their own presentations.  There's only about a
>    dozen slides so far, but I think it is wise to allocate considerable time
>    for comments and questions.
>    - The second is an explanation of the versioning concepts in
>    draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning.  I expect this will be over twenty slides.
> 
> I anticipate allocating, to be on the safe side, an hour total for my two
> presentations.  I hope this will leave adequate time for those
> discussing specific extensions, assuming that there aren't any we don't
> know about yet.

I can read drafts and slides on my own ahead of time.  I'm not convinced
one-way communication is the best way to use time when everybody's there
and available to give feedback in real time.  Could we think of a
different way to organize this?

--b.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:30:33 -0500

My document has been out for a while, and while I expect people to have
read them, I haven't got all that many comments.

This could be because:

   - The documents are perfect as is
   - Everybody would rather just stick with minor versioning as is.

I don't think either of these are true and if someone thinks they are, I
would expect them to say so.

I may have been influenced by the fact that these calls are a replacement
for a working group meeting, minus the time and expense of a flight to
Buenos Aires.  And if I were to have been given 45-60 minutes in BA, the
two slide sets I've mentioned would be what I would present.  If people
would rather have a discussion during that time, I would be OK with that,
but my experience is that summarizing the topic in slides is helpful, and
so far, nobody at an actual presentation has said, "I don't need slides, my
comments are ...". I guess I'd be OK with that, but if that doesn't happen,
I'd rather start presenting the slides than have an hour of silence.

I'll send out both sets of slides by 3/15.  If people want to propose times
for them to present their comments, we can accommodate them.  If those
activities start filling up the available time, then there will be no need
for me to actually present slides.

As far as giving feedback in real time, I don't expect people to be shy and
do expect comments in real time.

Also, if you give a presentation on mode_umask, I (and others) will give
you comments in real time

> Could we think of a different way to organize this?

I'm open to any suggestions you have.

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:53:52 -0500

> would expect them to say so.

Personally I like the idea, but I think it could be shorter (but don't
have constructive suggestions about what to cut at this point).

My todo before the meeting is to put together something that can build a
4.2 extension draft, the recommended tables, consolidated xdr, etc., out
of the same repository.

> do expect comments in real time.

OK.  I'm happy with slides as a way to keep discussion on track, and a 1
hour slot sounds reasonable for that.  I was afraid you meant that the
slides+presentation are an hour's worth of material just on their own.

--b.

---

From: Mike Kupfer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:44:05 -0800

>    - Everybody would rather just stick with minor versioning as is.

In my case, it's just because I'm swamped. :-(

I do plan to attend the concall.

mike

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:51:22 -0400

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:26:20PM +0000, Spencer Shepler wrote:
> 
> We will hold a 2 hour Working Group Design Team meeting on March 29th at Noon Pacific Time.
> 
> We will be discussion versioning and features that may reasonable candidates to help move that discussion forward.  Detailed agenda is to come.
> 
> Everyone is welcome to join but please RSVP to this email to me directly and I will forward the conference call information directly.
> 
> I will NOT be publishing the conference call information to the WG alias directly so you will need to RSVP.

By the way, I RSVP'd but didn't get call information.  (Or maybe I did
but lost it, apologies if so!)

Would someone mind passing along the numbers?

--b.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:57:54 +0000

Apologies, Bruce.  I have forwarded the info.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF NFSv4 WG Design Team Meeting - March 29th (different meeting from 3/15)

> I will NOT be publishing the conference call information to the WG alias directly so you will need to RSVP.

By the way, I RSVP'd but didn't get call information.  (Or maybe I did but lost it, apologies if so!)

--b.

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:59:31 -0400

> Apologies, Bruce.  I have forwarded the info.

Thanks!

--b.