Subject: [nfsv4] Minutes from Feb. 2, 2006 Conference Call

From: Lisa Week <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:29:59 -0700

IETF NFSv4 Working Group Conference Call
February 2, 2006
Note: Action items and attendee list at the end of minutes

Agenda:

    Review RECLAIM proposal from Dave Noveck identify
    any issues standing in the way of consensus

    Review pNFS reclaim proposal and issues.

Agenda Bashing:
---------------
No items to add

Minutes:
--------
- Dave Noveck has sent email to the NFSv4 WG alias which further
describes the reclaim-related operations proposal along with a
description of the remaining issues.
See: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02552.html

- On the WG alias, David Robinson raised the issue of making the reclaim
operations mandatory to implement in NFSv4.1.  (See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02553.html)  The
consensus on the con call was that the RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation should
be mandatory to implement for both the client and the server.  If
mandatory, this may allow the removal of the RECLAIM_START operation,
which is just a probe by the client to see if the server will do a
RECLAIM_COMPLETE.

- Tom Talpey raised issues regarding the reclaim-related operations
proposal and Sessions.  The consensus on the call was that there needs
to be more text added to the proposal to deal with the Sessions issues.
This text may be used to identify the convention for other operations.
Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck will address this offline.

- Issue of whether we need to completely replace clientid w/ sessionid
in the presence of sessions was raised.

- Issue regarding the fact that we can't share state/file handles
between minor versions was raised.  WG needs to figure out if a client
can change minor versions between server reboots and needs to work on a
model for the client and server changing versions at weird times.

- Issue regarding section 8.14.1 of RFC3530 and state migration was
raised.  Andy will be posting questions on WG.

- Steve Fridella has posted a proposal for the pNFS reclaim bit to the
NFSv4 WG alias.  See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg02534.html

- There have been two issues raised regarding Steve's proposal:
1.) When can the server can start servicing writes during the grace
period?  If the server can guarantee that it won't interfere with or
write over the data being written by the reclaim, then it is allowed to
service the write.
2.) Should the LAYOUTCOMMIT with reclaim functionality be mandatory to
implement?  The consensus on the call is that it would be simplest to
make this mandatory, but there was confusion on what scenarios would
cause a client to have to replay the writes.  In order to go forward,
Steve Fridella will post clarifying information to the NFSv4 WG.

- If the reclaim functionality with LAYOUTCOMMIT is mandatory, it is
thought that there may need to be a way to tell the client whether or
not they need to issue those requests.  This is because there are
implementations that may not require reclaim to ever occur.  This may
also allow clients to have the option of operating in "safe mode" if it
knows that the server won't support a commit in reclaim mode.

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.

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

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.

AI022: Spencer to follow up with WG to see where interests in CCM lie
with respect to Minor Version I-D.

AI023: Spencer to talk to Nico Williams to see if there is any ground
work that needs to be laid in NFSv4.1 for channel bindings.

AI024: WG to send email to Spencer if there is something that you feel
really needs to be addressed in the errata to be included in the Minor
Version I-D.

AI025: Spencer to follow up with WG on utf8 and stringprep issues.

AI027: Spencer to resolve the issue of the new operation for lookup of
the parent directory in the context of SECINFO being named the same as
the existing lookup operation in the table of contents draft.

AI028: Spencer to research the group's options with regard to document
and issue management related to this effort.

AI029: Spencer to create a draft of the contents for the Minor Version
I-D.  This will be done once the table of contents draft has sat for a
few days in order to address any questions or comments that come from
the WG.

AI030: Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck to work on text clarifying the
interactions between the reclaim-related operations and Sessions.

AI031: Paul Mazzurana to post questions to the WG alias regarding the
reclaim-related operations proposal.

AI032: Andy Adamson to post questions to the WG alias regarding section
8.14.1 of RFC 3530 and the issue of state migration.

AI033: Steve Fridella to post write-up to the WG alias regarding the
scenarios that would cause a client to have to replay writes.

Attendees:
--------------

Lisa Week - Sun Microsystems
Sam Falkner - Sun Microsystems
Spencer Shepler - Sun Microsystems
Brian McCorkell - IBM
Mario Wurzl- EMC
Serge - Hummingbird
David Black - EMC
Garth Goodson - NetApp
Steve Fridella - EMC
David Sheffield - IBM
Tom Talpey - NetApp
Dave Noveck - NetApp
Todd Pisek - Sun Microsystems
Paul Mazzurana - IBM
Mike Eisler - NetApp
Tom Vanderputten - EMC
Saadia Khan - NetApp
Bruce Fields - CITI
Andy Adamson - CITI
Trond Myklebust - CITI
Tom Haynes - Sun Microsystems

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