Subject: [nfsv4] IETF77 NFSv4 minutes and presentations available

From: Spencer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:59:10 -0500

Everything has been posted and may be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/77/materials.html

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:47:52 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/77/materials.html

The discussion of future minor versions did not mention the possibility
of a la carte extensibility.  I don't know if that would be an
appropriate model for minor extensions to NFSv4, but it should at least
be considered.

Nico
--

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:29:14 -0400

I'm preparing an updated version of the slides to reflect discussion at
the working group meeting and possibly some of the immediate discussion
on the working group list.  So if you can provide some information about
what this would consist of, I could add a slide or two about the
requirements and issues.

To some degree, the normal minor version model has a la carte elements.
The minor version defines a set of new features which may be OPTIONAL or
RECOMMENDED.  Clients and servers may choose to implement whatever
subset of those they choose, a la carte.  So how would a la carte
extensibility go beyond that in a-la-carte-ness (I admit that word is a
monstrosity but don't know what else to do :-) 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Nicolas Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:48 PM
To: Spencer
Cc: nfsv4 nfsv4
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF77 NFSv4 minutes and presentations available

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

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:15:08 -0500

> To some degree, the normal minor version model has a la carte elements.

Indeed, it does.  My comment is about the process by which new elements
are added.  A process that requires multiple years for simple extensions
(i.e., nothing quite like pNFS) is not an ideal process.

In other words: it should be possible to add new elements [that do not
radically alter or do violence to the protocol] without having to change
the minor version number, without having to wait for a train, get on the
train, and then move at a snail's pace to the final destination.

In order to achieve a faster model of extension standardization we need
an a la carte extension negotiation system, and we need it not for its
own sake but so as to make the process lighter-weight.

Nico
--

---

From: Robert Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:56:23 -0500

> own sake but so as to make the process lighter-weight.

I need to catch-up -- However, this speaks to a (very much) earlier chat we had with respect to features offered at the server, and how a client may enquire which features are supported, meaning features that are not tied to a specific minor version. 

Robert..