Subject: [nfsv4] Minutes from Jan. 19, 2006 Conference Call

From: Lisa Week <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:48:21 -0700

IETF NFSv4 Working Group Conference Call
January 19, 2006
Note: Action items and attendee list at the end of minutes

Agenda:
    - Continue --
      Directory delegations based on Dave Novecks WG email from Sep 9th
          see: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02112.html
    - consensus on pNFS reclaim bit
    - consensus on RECLAIM_COMPLETE

Agenda Bashing:
-----------------------
Items to add:
1.) Discussion on Mike Eisler's proposal for implementation IDs

Minutes:
--------
- There was a request for Spencer to send the agenda for the meetings 
further in advance.  Spencer acknowledged.

- Andy Adamson has posted ideas on the topic of NFSv4 Global Namespace 
to the WG alias.  Discussion on this will either wait until next week or 
will be done on the WG alias.  See: 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02510.html

- Mike Eisler has posted to the WG alias to discuss the proposal to 
incorporate Implementation IDs (specifically the method using new 
RECOMMENDED attributes with existing GETATTR/SETATTR operations) into 
the Minor Version I-D.  See: 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02466.html
There have been no objections on the WG alias and only one objection 
heard on the concall, therefore, rough consensus has been reached and 
Implementation IDs will be incorporated into the Minor Version I-D.

- Question on whether we need further follow up on the pNFS Reclaim bit 
discussion was raised.  There have not been any strong objections on the 
WG alias, but consensus was that more detailed text needs to be written.

- Dave Noveck has posted to the WG alias to discuss the proposal to 
incorporate a new RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation into the Minor Version 
I-D.  See: 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02479.html
Dave Robinson raised issue on the WG alias regarding the fact that 
RECLAIM_COMPLETE doesn't solve the problem of when the client can't 
reclaim all locks during the grace period.  Question on whether it is 
worth going to a scheme that is more complicated in order to solve this 
case was raised.  Dave Noveck is against adding the complexity, but 
asked what the consensus was.  The consensus on the concall was that 
incremental improvements are good and the proposal should go forward 
without adding a solution for the issue Dave Robinson brought up.

- Bruce Fields brought up the point that there needs to be an attribute 
stating whether or not the server supports RECLAIM_COMPLETE because of 
the different actions that the client needs to take depending on whether 
the server supports this or not.

- In response to the questions on whether we can separate read-only 
directory delegations from notifications,  Saadia answered yes, these 
things can be quite separate.  Question of what implementations are 
required to support was raised.  The answer was that, as specified, 
implementations have the following 2 choices: 1.) Implement only 
directory delegations 2.) Implement directory delegations and 
notifications.  Notifications require directory delegations, therefore, 
implementations do not have the choice of supporting notifications 
without directory delegations.

- In the current directory delegation proposal, after a delegation has 
been recalled, you need to refetch the directory.  The point was made 
that it would be nice to let the client know why a delegation is being 
recalled in order to allow the client to be able to do negative name 
caching and reduce the amount of OPEN/LOOKUP calls required.  This is 
not possible in the current proposal (and actually has some difficult 
problems related to it).    Consensus on the concall was that this 
shouldn't be addressed for NFSv4.1.

- It was stated that write directory delegations are not going to be 
done in NFSv4.1.

- Dave Noveck raised an outstanding issue regarding CB_RECALL_ANY and 
servers that may have different classes of storage.  Issue still open.

- Question of whether directory delegations require sessions was 
raised.  It is thought that as defined in the current I-D, directory 
delegations do depend on sessions, but the state of the document needs 
to be confirmed.  There are a lot of differing opinions on this 
subject.  Brian McCorkell(sp?) stated that they would prefer that 
directory delegations did not depend on sessions.  Question of how much 
complexity we want to introduce in order to get around directory 
delegations depending on sessions was raised.  Mike Eisler stated that 
we need to move away from introducing any more operations with sequence 
ids.  This issue is still open.  Consensus was that we need Tom Talpey's 
data (See: AI008) in order to move toward closure.

Action Items:
-----------

AI001: Spencer to complete dot-x with 4.1 operations and post for review

AI002: Spencer to follow up with David Robinson on the current stateid
proposal to close discussion.

AI003: Spencer to complete draft table of contents for NFS4.1 I-D in the 
context of making it a "complete" document

AI005: Saadia Kahn to work with Spencer on the directory delegations 
section of the NFS4.1 I-D to close on structure and issues

AI006: Dave Noveck to work with Spencer on directory delegation issues: 
see AI005

AI008: Tom Talpey to post about end-of-file pNFS issue and relation to 
sessions

AI009: WG to make sure we come to closure on the pNFS reclaim bit and 
Spencer to reflect the decision in the NFS4.1 I-D

AI010: Spencer to make clarification in the NFS4.1 I-D about the 
assertion that directory delegations should not be dependent on sessions.

AI011: Spencer to forward Brian Wickman(?) and Bruce Field's questions 
regarding directory delegations/notifications to working group.

AI012: Dave Noveck to review his Sept. 9th email and send an update in 
light of January 12th's discussion.

AI014: Arun swaron Jagathee to raise question about read-only replica's 
effects on directory delegations to NFSv4 WG alias.

AI015: Spencer to add Implementation IDs to the minor version I-D.

AI016: Mike Eisler to send Spencer Implementation ID text for the minor 
version draft.  See: AI015

AI017: Steve Fridella to write up sample text for the pNFS reclaim bit 
proposal and send out for review.

AI018: Dave Noveck to do a write-up clarifying the different corner 
cases being remedied by the introduction of the RECLAIM_COMPLETE 
operation.  First the text will be sent to Bruce, if they reach 
consensus, the text will be sent to the WG.

AI019: Dave Noveck to draft a proposal for adding a new attribute 
stating whether or not the server supports RECLAIM_COMPLETE.  First the 
text will be sent to Bruce, if they reach consensus, the text will be 
sent to the WG.

AI020: Dave Noveck to send a write-up to the WG about the outstanding 
issue regarding CB_RECALL_ANY and servers that may have different 
classes of storage.

AI021: Spencer to remind Tom Talpey of his AI.  See: AI008

Attendees:
--------
Steve Fridella - EMC
Mario Wurzl- EMC
Saadia Khan - NetApp
Dave Noveck - NetApp
Garth Goodson - NetApp
Mike Eisler - NetApp
Andy Adamson - CITI
Trond Myklebust - CITI
Bruce Fields - CITI
David Richter(?) - CITI
Todd Pisek - Sun
Bill Brown - IBM
Brian McCorkell - IBM
Benny Halevy - Panasas
Spencer Shepler - Sun
Tom Haynes - Sun
Paul Mazzurana - IBM

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