Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4 meeting at IETF 95 Buenos Aires

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:06:17 +0000

Given that hotel registration is opening up for IETF 95, I wanted to query for agenda items for IETF 95 to determine if we will be meeting.

Thoughts?

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:47:41 -0800

> On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>  

I’d like to wrap up my remaining documents - Layout thoughts and the Flex Files.

I’d also be interested in hearing something about Chuck’s work.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:57:35 -0500

> On Dec 11, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Tom Haynes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

IETF 95 conflicts with the 2016 OpenFabrics Developer Workshop.

I could present something by phone. However, our work is
being done on the mailing list and there are several active
Working Group documents. I'm not sure what more I could
say about this at a meeting. If there's a specific area
where live interaction might be warranted, I'm happy to
take requests to see if there's material for a presentation.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 07:46:55 -0500

I think we need more clarity about when any such decision might be made.
Although it's probably not his  intention, Spencer's message could be read
as suggesting such a decision might be made in the very near future.  Since
IETF95 is three and a half months away, that doesn't make sense to me.

We need to keep in mind that:

   - Travel approval and booking delays means that a decision to go to
   IETF95 would have to be made a month or more before the meeting.

If we make the decision too late, we may decide to meet and then have very
few people there to participate.  Some people can participate by phone but
an in-room discussion does have benefits.

   - In many cases, deciding to put in the effort into putting together a
   presentation can be expected to take a considerable time.

If we decide not to meet based on the fact that people don't know what they
will present months in advance, the group will often not meet when there
are good reasons to do so.

To help people plan their arrangements, we should have a clear target date
for this decision in mind.  My proposal is that we make the target date for
this decision six weeks before the meeting.  Is that OK with you, Spencer?

As Chuck has pointed out, document review is often done well on the mailing
list.  As a result, time at working group meetings is best devoted to
discussion/proposal of new initiatives.  If there is someone with an idea
about something the working group might take on once the five-year
experience with v4.2 is over, I'd like to hear about it.  That is something
that could be done in an I-D, but I think there would be cases in which a
presentation to the working group might be helpful. If there are people out
there with some ideas they want to present, I urge them to start working
now if they think that IETF95 might be a useful forum.  There would be an
opportunity to survey interest on the working group list before committing
to producing a presentation.

There are also cases in which review on the working group list has not been
working so well.  So far there has been no review of
draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-02.  I've asked people to review the current
draft on the mailing list, but I'm not sure what the response will be.  In
any case, I think it is likely that I will give a presentation to the
working group at IETF95 (probably by phone) about this document.  In the
best case, we'll review and try to address existing contentious issues and
talk about when WGLC might be appropriate.   If there has been not been
much  review, we might also consider the working group's other options
regarding our versioning model.

I think a discussion of Tom's documents could be helpful.  I could
participate by phone. I'd be OK discussing draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-07
and draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-04 (if Tom intends to pursue that) if we
saw those any time up to the two-weeks-before-meeting publication cutoff.
Other people might need more time to look at these, so earlier on these
would be better.

Also, given the way things are progressing on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis,
I'm thinking that April might be a good time to review the process so far
and to discuss a possible WGLC for that document.  I hope Chuck could give
a presentation by phone on any remaining contentious issues, timing for
WGLC, and what areas he would like people to pay particular attention to
during last call.
 On Dec 11, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
wrote:
>> Given that hotel registration is opening up for IETF 95, I wanted to
query for agenda items for IETF 95 to determine if we will be meeting.

--
Chuck Lever

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv
4