Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4.2 status

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:52:19 -0700

In reviewing for the meeting tomorrow, I just went over the notes from Maastricht and I was
wondering where we were with regards to NFSv4.2?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:57:48 -0400

My recollection is that we concluded that we needed a change in the
group charter in order to make a requirements document for v4.2 into a
working group document.  I assumed that all the nodding meant that the
group co-chairs and area directors were going to proceed in that
direction.  OTOH, I didn't hear anybody say "I commit myself to get this
done and report back to the working group when it is done".

I would assume that if there had been any progress on this we would have
heard, so my tentative conclusion is that nothing much has happened.  If
there has been progress, that just hasn't been reported, I'd be pleased
to hear that. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Thomas Haynes
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4.2 status

In reviewing for the meeting tomorrow, I just went over the notes from
Maastricht and I was
wondering where we were with regards to NFSv4.2?
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:06:01 +0000

> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Maastricht and I was wondering where we were with regards to NFSv4.2?

As the result of the discussion/review of the draft-faibish-nfsv4-pnfs-access-permissions-check
draft, it will become a -00 working group draft on next update.  Given this, these changes
are the near term candidate for an NFSv4.2.

I will be working with our ADs on milestone/date updates based on the
next couple of design-group concalls (fedfs and nfsv4.0bis).

There is obviously interest in other additions given the drafts in existence
for server side copy, space reservation, and pathless objects.  If one or 
more of those gain interest, activity, support, then we'll move forward
with them.  It appears that a vector of support is forming behind
virtualization support.  My preference is that we move where there is
interest/energy so progress can be readily made.

Spencer

---

From: "David P. Quigley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:34:39 -0400

> interest/energy so progress can be readily made.

Just a reminder that we are very committed to security label support for
NFSv4.2. If we are going for a virtualization support theme this
definitely has an impact on virtualization security. We have been using
SELinux  with svirt for a while on RHEL and Fedora machines and it would
be great for those vm images to be on an NFS share and still be able to
use svirt (not possible at the moment without the security label
support). Sorin and I also intend on showing a use case for security
labels using our products at the october Bake-A-Thon.

Dave