Subject: [nfsv4] [NFSv4.2] Meeting Agenda for 8/25/11 (UPDATED Conference Call ID: 4082151519)

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:17:03 -0500

Time: Thursdays 12:30-1:30 PM CST/1:30-2:30 PM EST/10:30-11:30 AM PST
Dial-in: 1-866-844-9418 (Toll Free)
       1-517-345-9208 (Caller paid)     
         1800-936-206 (Israel toll free)

     Id: 4082151519

NOTE: New Conference Call ID!

Proposed Agenda
---------------

+ IETF Note Well Agreement

 This is a reminder that our discussions are governed by the 
 IETF Note Well Agreement. See:

   http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html

 We will start each week's meeting with this announcement.

+ New Conference Call ID: 4082151519

I had a pilot error with NetApp's concall service and the ID was changed. This will be
the new id going forward. Please update your calendars.

+ Summary of IETF 81

LNFS in
I/O hints in

+ LNFS update

4.2 XDR includes LNFS XDR
Requirement's document

+ IO_ADVISE update

Dean has an early draft.

+ Draft -04 is out

++ Time to start reviewing - I want to start first with Sections 2 and 3. They are small and should
give us an idea of what to expect and how to refine the process once we start on the
larger sections.

++ Section 8.6

- Do we still want a LNFS section which describes NFS modes of operation?
- Do we still want to use smart and dumb terminology?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the second is no, but I am not as sure for the first question.

If the responses are "Yes" and "No", then what terminology are we going to use?

---

From: David Quigley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:48:25 -0400

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:17:03 -0500, Thomas Haynes wrote:
>  http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html [1]
>
> ++ Time to start reviewing - I want to start first with Sections 2 
> and
> 3. They are small and should
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html

 Unfortunately I won't be able to make the telecon but this is my take 
 on section 8.6. I think we do want to keep this section however we need 
 to change some of the terminology in the document. One quick fix would 
 be to change how we describe smart and dumb entities. Smart client 
 should be replaced with text that indicates that it is an nfs client 
 that supports both subject and object labeling. The same goes for a 
 "smart server" as well. In the case of a dumb server all references to 
 it should be replaced with a server that supports only object labeling. 
 Now the better solution is to change the entire section and talk about 
 how subject and object labeling themselves are used and to describe the 
 scenarios based on that. I will be working on the requirements document 
 this weekend and I'll be trying to frame the section in those terms 
 instead.

 Dave