Subject: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 11:12:51 -0400

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/

Says the cut-off for requesting a meeting room is June 1, 2018.

I can think of a few agenda topics that are relevant at this time:

- Tom/Trond have some virtualization-related extensions and other protocol fixups
- I can give a backgrounder on the Integrity Measurement work I'm doing
- Dave and I have the mv0 and mv1 trunking documents
- Any other 2018 milestones, such as the expired pNFS SCSI NVMe layout I-D
- RPC/RDMA credits: the road ahead

That's not an exhaustive list, but it seems like critical mass already.
Any other thoughts?

Can we set a go/no-go decision date, say Friday May 18th?

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 08:18:01 -0700

> On May 7, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid/>

> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 07:01:15 -0400

> Says the cut-off for requesting a meeting room is June 1, 2018.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

> - Tom/Trond have some virtualization-related extensions and other
protocol fixups

Agree that we should discuss this work.  I owe Tom a review of his document
and want that to be out at least a month before the meeting.

> - I can give a backgrounder on the Integrity Measurement work I'm doing

That would be good.  Given that document plans for this have changed
recently,
it will be good to prepare the working group for what is probably coming.

> - Dave and I have the mv0 and mv1 trunking documents

I also have draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues which has a milestone date of
June
2018 for WGLC.   -15, which I expect to be the last revision, will be out
in the next
few weeks so WGLC is possible by 6/30, but, realistically, we have to
prepared to
discuss this at IETF102.

After -15 is out, I will send mail to the Spencer's regarding schedule
expectations.
I will copy the working group list to give others the opportnity to comment
about
the realism (or otherwise) of my expectations.

This seems to me the only 2018 milestone that cannot be accommodated by a
relatively minor adjustment.  However, given that we are meeting in July
2018,
I think we need to look more than five months ahead.

Perhaps we need to review our milestones in general and discuss the
potential
need for adjustments.

Good topic.

Unless AI has made some enormous strides, there will be no self-driving
cars on this road :-)

> That's not an exhaustive list, but it seems like critical mass already.

It's enough for a 150-minute session.

> Any other thoughts?

Given that this will be in the eastern time zone, remote participation
should
be relatively easy.  So people should not have to wait for travel appoval
before deciding to have this meeting.

> Can we set a go/no-go decision date, say Friday May 18th?

I don't see why not.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 14:37:11 -0500

Without expressing an opinion about when WGs meet and do not meet (that's a
WG decision), it might be worth me mentioning that it's extremely unlikely
I would object to a virtual interim meeting for any of my WGs, and the TSV
ADs have a dedicated WebEx bridge ... so if you need to talk, but not badly
enough to meet face to face, you still have options.

Do the right thing, of course!

Thanks,

Spencer (D)

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 15:42:02 -0700

As you will note, I have submitted a meeting request for IETF 102 (Thanks
for pushing the discussion this week, Chuck).

I wanted to get the meeting request in given the positive outlook and for
the fact that hotel registration deadlines were approaching quickly.

I can cancel the meeting request if there is a lack of interest but we
should make that decision soon (Monday or Tuesday at the latest).

Spencer

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Without expressing an opinion about when WGs meet and do not meet (that's
> a WG decision), it might be worth me mentioning that it's extremely
> unlikely I would object to a virtual interim meeting for any of my WGs, and
> the TSV ADs have a dedicated WebEx bridge ... so if you need to talk, but
> not badly enough to meet face to face, you still have options.
>

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:26:07 -0400

> draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid/>

What's the motivation for WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION?

--b.

---

From: Trond Myklebust <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 23:10:54 -0400

On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:26, J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid-00 <
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid/>

> What's the motivation for WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION?

What's the motivation for asking for a delegation _and_ an open stateid?
That means you have to return 2 objects instead of just one.

The WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION  option authorises the server to return a
delegation without the open stateid, which cuts down on the amount of
traffic between the client and server. Yes, you could just ask for a
delegation using WANT_DELEGATION, but if the server is unable to hand one
out, it will return an error, and you're back to sending an OPEN..

Cheers
   Trond

---

From: Dr James Bruce Fields <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 23:20:54 -0400

> out, it will return an error, and you're back to sending an OPEN..

Got it, thanks.  So the traffic saved is one unnecessary CLOSE (in the
case the server returns a delegation)?

--b.

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 20:22:26 -0700

> On May 16, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Dr James Bruce Fields <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes - and perhaps a GETATTR in that compound

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 17:46:02 -0400

> Yes - and perhaps a GETATTR in that compound

Is there a particular case you've encountered when those turn out to be
a problem?

--b.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 08:46:44 -0700

> On May 11, 2018, at 3:42 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> As you will note, I have submitted a meeting request for IETF 102 (Thanks for pushing the discussion this week, Chuck).

Thank you for requesting the room!

Go/No-go went by us on Friday. I haven't heard any objections to
meeting, and there does seem to be a substantive list of topics
we could discuss. We appear to have enough energy behind meeting
in Montreal in July.

> I wanted to get the meeting request in given the positive outlook and for the fact that hotel registration deadlines were approaching quickly.
> 
> I can cancel the meeting request if there is a lack of interest but we should make that decision soon (Monday or Tuesday at the latest).
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Without expressing an opinion about when WGs meet and do not meet (that's a WG decision), it might be worth me mentioning that it's extremely unlikely I would object to a virtual interim meeting for any of my WGs, and the TSV ADs have a dedicated WebEx bridge ... so if you need to talk, but not badly enough to meet face to face, you still have options.
> 

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 12:34:51 -0400

> Go/No-go went by us on Friday.

I had thought of Spencer's message as the as the Go/No-go (in this case Go).
My interpretation was that he requested a meeting based on his judgment
that there was a general feeling that we should meet.

> I haven't heard any objections to meeting,

Neither did  Spencer.

> and there does seem to be a substantive list of topics
> we could discuss.

We now have to turn that into a list of topics we will discuss and
divvy up the meeting time.

> We appear to have enough energy behind meeting
> in Montreal in July.

Yes. Now it's just a question of getting money, reservations, and plane
tickets,
and getting presentations ready.

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > As you will note, I have submitted a meeting request for IETF 102
> (Thanks for pushing the discussion this week, Chuck).
>
> > I wanted to get the meeting request in given the positive outlook and
> for the fact that hotel registration deadlines were approaching quickly.
> >
> > Without expressing an opinion about when WGs meet and do not meet
> (that's a WG decision), it might be worth me mentioning that it's extremely

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 09:36:33 -0700

Yes. Meeting is "on" and agenda items would be great so I can get those
posted in the meeting tool, etc.

Spencer

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 09:57:33 -0700

> On May 21, 2018, at 9:34 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

> I can cancel the meeting request if there is a lack of interest but we should make that decision soon (Monday or Tuesday at the latest).

Which I took to mean that his request was provisional and that
no decision on meeting had been confirmed.

But now we are "go" so let me propose some topics I can lead:

Integrity Management Architecture backgrounder
- 15 minutes. I will submit a WG document before July 2 that
replaces draft-cel-ietf-linux-seclabel-xtensions-00 with a
mechanism that uses OPTIONAL GETATTR attributes instead of
extending NFSv4 security labels.

Road map for completing draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 
- 10 minutes, should follow discussion of nfsv4-migration-update,
of course.

RPC/RDMA credit accounting round table
- 15 minutes. What needs to be fixed in RPC/RDMA credit
accounting?

> Yes. Now it's just a question of getting money, reservations, and plane tickets, 
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:28:58 -0400

> - 10 minutes, should follow discussion of nfsv4-migration-update,

That would place you between a discussion of draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-
issues-15
and draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-00.   If you want to change the order,
we could do that.
I'm assuming that the discussion of the three drafts will take 45 minutes
as a whole.

I think there will need to be a review of where we are on our milestones.
 It appears I will be
a bit late on WGLC for draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration issues, but the other two
documents in that
group seem like they will be done in time.   I expect the discussion/review
of our remaining milestones
will take about fifteen minutes.

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 15:07:03 -0700

> On May 17, 2018, at 2:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

No, but in general we like to reduce the number of GETATTRs, especially ones
which require us to go to the DSes.