Subject: RE: Draft agenda for NFSv4 meeting in Minneapolis Wed. Mar. 20 13 :00 - 15:00

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:03:32 -0800

I just looked at the Goals and Milestones section under
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nfsv4-charter.html.

Both "Conduct final Interoperability tests" and
"Conduct full Interoperability tests for all NFSV4
features" are both marked "Done".

What are "final Interoperability tests" and how do 
they relate to the "full Interoperability tests"?
I would think that the "final" tests would be 
final, i.e. after all of the others, but perhaps
there is some IETF reason why not.  What's the 
deal?

Unless I missed an amazing burst of creativity by
having to leave Connectathon one day early, there 
are lots of features that haven't had full interoperability
testing (with two independently developed implementations).

Nobody has implemented (so no interoperability testing):

    SPKM3 support.
    LIPKEY support.
    Migration support.
    Replication support.

Some implementation work but no known interoperability testing:

    UTF-8 support.

Some implementation work and limited interoperablity testing
but not extensive enough to meet the criterion:

    Delegation.
    State recovery.

Implementation and some testing in passing but no sufficiently
focused testing to establish full interoperability (i.e. the stuff
might work if we carefully tested it, but we haven't written the
tests).

    UID's and GID's as strings.

Implementation and interoperability testing which might meet
the criterion:

    Named attributes.

Features that have had enough testing to establish interoperability.

    All the V2/V3 features.
    Security negotiation through GSSRPC.
    Kerberos support.
    Pseudo-fs.
    Locking (although note the caveats below)

         No mandatory locking.

         OPENs have been tested but I only know of one client that
         would be issuing opens with anything other than DENY=NONE.

         As mentioned above, only limited testing of state recovery.

         No testing under adverse network conditions to establish 
         that the implementations of the seqencing/stateid features
         are really interoperable.

Anybody have additions or other changes to this list?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Pawlowski [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Draft agenda for NFSv4 meeting in Minneapolis Wed. Mar. 20
13:00 - 15:00

Hello,

I have attached the proposed agenda for the Minneapolis IETF
meeting of the NFSv4 WG.   For info about this IETF meeting see:

        http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-53.html

Note the pre-registration/pre-payment cutoff of 

	NOON ET, FRIDAY, 8 MARCH 2002

The working group will focus on closure of the specification
updates with results of testing from Connectathon of the various
implementations and the plan and dates for resubmission and
consideration as an updated Prooposed Standard.

Make sure you review the working group documents before you come.

First two rows of the room seating will be reserved for those
who have read the docs!  Document links are available via
the WG web page at

	http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nfsv4-charter.html

Please submit any agenda changes/additions or requests to present to me
([email-masked]) before 5PM ET March 13, 2002.

    beepy

8< --------------------------------------------------------

Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)
-------------------------------------
 
Chair(s):

    Robert Thurlow <[email-masked]>
    Brian Pawlowski <[email-masked]>

Document Editor:

    Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:  Wednesday March 20th: 13:00pm - 15:00 (2 hours)

    Welcome and Introduction            (Pawlowski)        5 min
    Agenda bash

    Connectathon results                (Shepler)          5 min

    Closure of specification update     (Shepler)         25 min

    Migration/replication next steps    (Thurlow)         25 min

    Review of work items                (Shepler/Pawlowski) 25 min

        - API GSSAPI advancement
        - MIB draft
        - RPC/XDR/RPCSEC_GSS RFC plans

    Open discussion                     (Pawlowski)       30 m

    Wrapup                              (Pawlowski)        5 m

---

From: Brian Pawlowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:36:36 -0800 (PST)

> features" are both marked "Done".

Thanks - that's definitely a mistake.  And I need to figure out why the
ordering is screwy.  Something got munged after we realized we had to
resubmit a Proposed Standard.

> there is some IETF reason why not.  What's the 

The IETF did not define the wording nor the milestones - we did, but as
I said, something is munged. (Well, I guess we mau already be the
IETF:-)

> testing (with two independently developed implementations).

You did miss some things at Cthon by leaving early, of that there is no
doubt:-) (So much left over from the party had to be disposed of...)

All that said, let's chat near term:

	For resubmission of Proposed Standard we need to address the
	"bugs" found after RFC 3010 was published.  Those "bugs", as
	you know, were identified as unfixable in implementation.

	The goal of the testing through Connectathon this week of the
	various NFS Version 4 prototypes was to gain confidence that
	the changes in the specification address the known problems.

	I believe that beyond that, more work has been done in the
	implementations beyond that leading up to RFC 3010 that
	provides greater confidence in the specification as whole as
	being implementable and interoperable.

It is certainly the time to bring out any showstoppers for
implementation of the specification as it now stands (with fixes).  It
is the intention of several groups to ship this forthcoming
specification.

Proposed Standard does not require demonstration of implementability or
interoperability - though the protocol design is certainly reviewed
with a strong emphasis to those areas.  I think NFS Version 4 is
executing on due diligence of the specification through prototyping and
testing.

Now, what happens immediately beyond resubmission of the Proposed
Standard?

If there are no further issues found in the new Proposed Standard
(which will get a new RFC #) then we are entering a track to work
towards Draft Standard. Two things are of interest in that track:

	First, no standard can advance beyond the level of
	standardization of any RFC on which it depends.  For NFS V4,
	one of these dependencies is GSSAPI.  To aid in advancing
	GSSAPI, several of us are working on the following method to
	advance APIs:

	ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pawlowski-apitest-00.txt

	Second, in moving from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard two
	independent interoperable implementations need to be
	demonstrated.  The testing is to be documented by the working
	group to argue that interoperability and independence exist.
	The not often spoken of part of the process from PS to DS is
	that features not implemented are dropped from the
	specification (modulo that security and congestion control etc.
	are required for any standard).

The second comment may apply to features such as LIPKEY and SPKM3 and
Migration and Replication. But I think some are looking at all of those
features now, and really this is not an issue until we start
considering the Draft Standard submission.

beepy

P.S. I'm definitely saving the write up below to seed the interoperability
     test plans for Draft Standard.

     I'll work with Spencer and Rob and people to correct the milestones
     and check status of recharter...

---

From: Mike Kupfer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:42:16 -0800

> Anybody have additions or other changes to this list?

ACLs.  I don't know what category it should go under (i.e., I don't
know how far anyone has gotten with the implementation or testing).

Last year I talked about writing up a proposal for the minimum subset
of the ACL definition in RFC 3010 that a server must implement.  I
haven't gotten to it yet, because it seems like there is always some
more important (or more pressing) issue to attend to.  Is there still
interest in such a proposal?

mike