Subject: [nfsv4] IETF101 (or Bakeathon) in March.

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:39:24 -0500

As some of you may have heard, there is a possibility of a Bakeathon event
in late March (in Ann Arbor).  I don't think the planned dates are actually
overlapping but they are close enough that very few people will want to
attend both if they are both held in March.  I know I would not and would
probably go to Ann Arbor if both were held in March.

Nevertheless, I still think it important for the working group to have some
sort of discussion of pending things we are working on so we might well
think about one or more conferences calls that we could schedule in that
approximate time frame.   I would like us to discuss next steps for the
nvme-pnfs work and for the draft-ietf-{mv0-trunking,mv1-msns}-update
documents.

What do other people think?  Is there anyone who would attend IETF101 in
London if there were a Bakeathon scheduled for the last week in March?  If
not, we might as well decide right now not to meet at IETF101 and figure
out how to address our needs for discussion in that time frame in another
fashion.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:28:15 -0500

> On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:39 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As some of you may have heard, there is a possibility of a Bakeathon event in late March (in Ann Arbor).  I don't think the planned dates are actually overlapping but they are close enough that very few people will want to attend both if they are both held in March.  I know I would not and would probably go to Ann Arbor if both were held in March.
> 
> Nevertheless, I still think it important for the working group to have some sort of discussion of pending things we are working on so we might well think about one or more conferences calls that we could schedule in that approximate time frame.   I would like us to discuss next steps for the nvme-pnfs work and for the draft-ietf-{mv0-trunking,mv1-msns}-update documents.
> 
> What do other people think?  Is there anyone who would attend IETF101 in London if there were a Bakeathon scheduled for the last week in March?  If not, we might as well decide right now not to meet at IETF101 and figure out how to address our needs for discussion in that time frame in another fashion.

Another way to view it: we seem to be on track to meet our
milestones for 2018, except for "pNFS on NVMe SCSI". I don't
feel a meeting is required to unstick this. The flex files
documents are also progressing.

Are there other issues that might benefit from a face-to-face
meeting in two months?

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:03:07 -0500

> we seem to be on track to meet our
> milestones for 2018,

You and I have submitted our documents, but there has been little
comment yet.   That could be because our documents are in such
great shape :-), but I think a discussion would be helpful to let us see
where stuff really is, in term of working group review. No need for it
to be face-to-face, however.

> except for "pNFS on NVMe SCSI". I don't
> feel a meeting is required to unstick this.

I don't know what is required or useful to unstick this.  I tried sending an
email to Christoph and that didn't help.  Any discussion of this, whether
face-to-face or not, would not have the goal of unsticking this.  It is now
clear that June 2018 is no longer an achievable date for final submission
of this, so people need to decide if we can arrive at an achievable new date
or we can decide, with Spencer D's concurrence, to drop the milestone.

> The flex files documents are also progressing.

One of them (draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files) is, but it faces a problem
because of its
normative reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types.  As things now stand
it is likely to wait a number of months for that reference to be resolved to
be published.  The latter document has been waiting for a writeup for about
five months, rather than the week or so that was originally promised.

I don't see a working group meeting as a good way to address this issue.
I think Tom and Spencer need to address this issue themselves.  If Tom
thinks
he needs the working group's help (or Spencer D.'s) he can ask for it.

> Are there other issues that might benefit from a face-to-face meeting in
two months?

There might be, but the more Important question is whether we are
comfortable
with having no face-to-face meeting for the next six months.   Normally I
wouldn't
be, but I feel that a testing event is more important and we can live
without a
meeting for the next six months, albeit somewhat uncomfortably.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > As some of you may have heard, there is a possibility of a Bakeathon
> event in late March (in Ann Arbor).  I don't think the planned dates are
> actually overlapping but they are close enough that very few people will
> want to attend both if they are both held in March.  I know I would not and
> would probably go to Ann Arbor if both were held in March.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I still think it important for the working group to have
> some sort of discussion of pending things we are working on so we might
> well think about one or more conferences calls that we could schedule in
> that approximate time frame.   I would like us to discuss next steps for
> the nvme-pnfs work and for the draft-ietf-{mv0-trunking,mv1-msns}-update
> documents.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>