Subject: [nfsv4] Notes from NFSv4 WG design conference call for March 29, 2016

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:26:44 +0000

-        Spencer Shepler

-        Dave Noveck

-        Marc Eshel

-        Mike Kupfer

-        Anna Schumaker

-        Chuck Lever

-        Bruce Fields

-        Manoj Naik

-        William Allen Simpson

-        Alex McDonald

Dave in review of agenda:

-        Current document review

o   Implications of document and items of particular interest

o   Seeking review comments

-        Extensions discussion or use cases (xattrs itself)

-        Motivations behind the document

o   Rules for updates to the versions changed minor version to minor version of NFSv4

o   Need one set of rules that stand alone and then apply to future work

o   New document (-03) covers:

?  XDR changes

?  Semantics or field interpretations

?  Allows for correction of protocol bugs

o   How minor versioning can be done but it may not be needed as future work is done

o   Intent is that this rule-set will allow for all future changes

-        "-03" was released at the beginning of the year and more review is needed

-        Dave's opinion that there is a need to modify the charter to reflect the abilities enabled by these extensions document

-        May need to include a statement in the charter to define maintenance and then align with the extensions proposal

-        Spencer suggested that the working group get the extensions document into "working group last call" and then approach the area directors about charter updates to align and seek their input and approval, etc.

Bruce:

-        Umask discussion

-        Proposals so far have been discussing adding one, new optional attribute

-        This is reasonably well understood and should allow for the umask proposal to fit in

-        Dave's comment about the umask support was to suggest that it is a bug in the older protocols that it is not included but does not change in the current suggestions

Manoj asked a general question about issues like: additions to ENUMs and error returns for items.
Dave suggests that a past proposal may cover these items such that there is clear identification of where the definitions are to be placed.

Marc:

-        Suggests that we need to have one-option for protocol changes; either choose versioning or an extensions mechanism

-        Associating the xattrs modifications with the proposed extensions definition is what Marc is suggesting

-        Spencer agreed that taking xattrs and extensions forward together would provide for review/feedback motivation for the WG

Bill raised some questions at the end of the call about the suitability of the document/approach.  In his opinion, the ability to craft a "how to do protocol updates" document is inappropriate or difficult in that future changes, being unknown, may not be able to follow the rules.  This has been exemplified by both of the minor version updates in that some of the minor versioning rules have changes in each.
Bill said he would review the extensions document and possible provide feedback in the form of document updates.

Spencer noted to goals or values that can come out of a document such as Dave's.  The first is that it is a means to have the working group agree to the change in methodology of protocol changes (e.g. minor version to extensions) and second, it is a method to capture design considerations or guidelines for future efforts.  The idea being that thinking through the major issues and capturing them will assist future work to be reasonably well considered as the proposals come to the working group for input and review.

There was a brief discussion about the inclusion of XDR in the Internet Drafts and that extensibility may "break" the ability to update or auto-generate XDR from those Internet Drafts.  Spencer noted that we should not block the extensibility definitions on the issues with internet draft updates.