Subject: [nfsv4] Minutes from Apr. 4, 2006 Conference Call

From: Lisa Week <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:30:12 -0600

IETF NFSv4 Working Group Conference Call
April 4, 2006
Note: Action items will be added to the issue tracker 
(http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/cgi-bin/roundup/nfsv4).  Attendee list is 
at the end of the minutes.

Agenda:
-----------
    - Discuss the general plan going forward for document updates and 
which content will be focused on.
    - Discuss Tom's proposal for sessions use in 4.1 and see if we can 
draw any remaining issues onto the table and reach consensus.

Agenda additions:
-------------------------
    - None

Minutes:
------------
Document update discussion:

* Goal is to submit a new document every other week.  The I-Ds will be 
published on the off weeks of the WG conference calls.  Spencer will 
work to point out changes between versions of published I-Ds.

* Items to be included in the next version of the 4.1 I-D:
    - Any major sections that haven't been included yet.  For inclusion 
in the next version, Dave Noveck will get sections on Referrals to 
Spencer this week.

Sessions discussion:

* Prompted by the discussion we had during the WG meeting, Tom has sent 
mail to the WG alias stating the case for making Sessions required for 4.1.
See: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02898.html

* Making sessions required:
Pros: Simplicity.  It makes the protocol simpler and better.
Cons: The minor version rules of RFC3530 say that new features can not 
be mandatory on introduction to the protocol.  Spencer mentioned that we 
have precedent for mandatory to implement features with the decision to 
make RECLAIM_COMPLETE mandatory.

* Consensus on the call is that we should have Sessions be mandatory for 
4.1.  It was noted that David Sheffield has talked to Carl Burnett and 
he is okay with this, but has concerns about what is required to implement.

* Consensus on which features of Sessions are mandatory has not been 
reached.

* Shepler asked if back channel support a requirement?  He thinks that 
back channel support should be mandatory.  Basis for this opinion is 
that directory delegations and regular delegations require callbacks.  
These features are needed to function well and most people will want 
that them.  In general, if people can count on the back channel support 
this will also make 4.1 a simpler and better protocol.

* Making back channels required:
Pros: A number of things require it (pNFS, directory delegations, file 
delegations).  With sessions, a back channel can share the same connection.
Cons: A number of things don't require it (secinfo, reclaim_complete, 
fs_locations stuff).  This makes the client implementations a little 
more complex because a client has to expect both requests and replies on 
the channel.  Don't think we've explored the implementation of this yet.

* Tom Talpey stated that the protocol is more interesting w/ back 
channel support, but he still thinks it should be optional.  For 
instance, a case where you wouldn't need to support callbacks could be 
thin clients with read-only mounts.  A non-back channel, read-only 
connection is interesting to a thin client.

* Dave Noveck stated that even if call backs are optional it would be 
reasonable to assume that there are callbacks present (i.e. not quite 
mandatory, but moving in the direction of relying on it).  In reaction 
to this, a question on whether this really means that they just need to 
be mandatory was asked.

* Question of whether we could add text that says if the server supports 
pNFS or delegations, then the server must support back channel was 
asked.  In other words, if the client asks for a back channel and it 
knows the server supports, for example, delegations, then the server 
must allow the binding to a back channel.

* Question on whether or not it is worth having a "back-channel 
support"  attribute was asked.  No consensus.

* Tom to provide draft text for what is meant when we say Sessions are 
required.  Official adoption will be the acceptance of the text.

Attendees:
---------------
Spencer Shepler (Sun)
Jeff Smith (Sun)
Tom Vanderputten (EMC)
Dave Noveck (NetApp)
Garth Goodson (NetApp)
Sam Falkner (Sun)
Steve Fridella (EMC)
Todd Pisek (Sun)
David Sheffield (IBM)
Craig Everhart (IBM)
Tom Talpey (NetApp)
Omer Asad (Sun)

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4