Subject: [nfsv4] Agenda for Interim meeting (last chance)

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:45:31 +0000

At this point, we have a sparse agenda for our
interim meeting.  I will wait until the end of
tomorrow (Jan 18th) for submissions.

At this point, it appears that a single, full day
will be sufficient for our agenda and thus the
Friday after FAST will be the only day.  Will confirm
tomorrow once deadline is complete.

Thanks,
Spencer

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:03:51 -0600

Can you publish the sparse agenda?

I've been holding off on items, expecting to see others make suggestions.

In any event, I'd like us to plan to meet on the Saturday as well. I'd hate
for us to discover that we like to talk and have someone jet away on the
Saturday.

Items I'm interested in:

1) Finalize RFC 3530bis - we should be close by then. The big ticket
item is the courtesy locks - the rest of them I should be able to knock
out by then. I either want to submit a final copy at this event or by
IETF 80.

2) Talk about the AUTH_SYS proposal brought up on the Linux mailing
list - about whether we should allow straight uid/gids in this case, which
should make for an easier transition to NFSv4 from NFSv3. An impact here
is that it would be nice to add to 3530bis.

I'd be willing to do slides for this one.

3) The LEASE_MOVED error handling.

4) Deeper dives on all proposals - we've been limited to nodding yes or
no in all of the previous meetings and not had a chance to explore
worth and how different proposals fit together.

For example:

5) In Mike's Bejing talk, he pointed out that Dean's proposal is a subset
of his. How do we resolve this?

draft-eisler-nfsv4-pnfs-dedupe-01.txt vs draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt

Also another subset issue:

draft-eisler-nfsv4-enterprise-apps-01.txt vs draft-iyer-nfsv4-space- reservation-ops-01.txt

6) Several of the new proposals (both the server side copy and the
pathless objects) introduce new PUTROOT_* ops. I'd rather we not
introduce a new op per new feature, but consolidate them into
one PUTROOT call that took an argument to specify in which
space.

PUTOBJROOTFH
PUTROOTFH
PUTPUBFH

See section 3.3.2 of the corresponding document for the server-to-server issue.

7) At least draft-dnoveck-storage-control-00 talks about registering extensions
of spaceid with IANA. I thought there was at least one other presentation
(which talked about carving up some space by vendor) that needed to also be
policed by IANA. I can't seem to id which one it is, but I'd like us to talk about
all such IANA impact.

8) Changing the nfsv4 charter to include 4.2.

9) As we work through the various items, we should identify what is 4.1 errata
(i.e.,fixable in that context or 5661bis), what is a 4.1 bug (i.e., needs to go into 4.2),
and what are new features (and are they going in 4.2, 4.x, or their own documents).

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:04:45 -0500

> The big ticket item is the courtesy locks 
 
OK.  I consider myself nagged.
 
Right now, I'm focusing on the pNFS issues but after I produce something
for that by 2/1, I should have time to produce a courtesy locks proposed
text for discussion at the interim meeting.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Thomas Haynes
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:04 AM
To: Spencer Shepler
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Agenda for Interim meeting (last chance)

I've been holding off on items, expecting to see others make
suggestions.

In any event, I'd like us to plan to meet on the Saturday as well. I'd
hate
for us to discover that we like to talk and have someone jet away on the
Saturday.

Items I'm interested in:

2) Talk about the AUTH_SYS proposal brought up on the Linux mailing
list - about whether we should allow straight uid/gids in this case,
which
should make for an easier transition to NFSv4 from NFSv3. An impact here
is that it would be nice to add to 3530bis.

For example:

5) In Mike's Bejing talk, he pointed out that Dean's proposal is a
subset
of his. How do we resolve this?

draft-eisler-nfsv4-pnfs-dedupe-01.txt vs
draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt

draft-eisler-nfsv4-enterprise-apps-01.txt vs draft-iyer-nfsv4-space-
reservation-ops-01.txt

PUTOBJROOTFH
PUTROOTFH
PUTPUBFH

See section 3.3.2 of the corresponding document for the server-to-server
issue.

7) At least draft-dnoveck-storage-control-00 talks about registering
extensions
of spaceid with IANA. I thought there was at least one other
presentation
(which talked about carving up some space by vendor) that needed to also
be
policed by IANA. I can't seem to id which one it is, but I'd like us to
talk about
all such IANA impact.

9) As we work through the various items, we should identify what is 4.1
errata
(i.e.,fixable in that context or 5661bis), what is a 4.1 bug (i.e.,
needs to go into 4.2),
and what are new features (and are they going in 4.2, 4.x, or their own
documents).

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:00:55 -0600

> 8) Changing the nfsv4 charter to include 4.2.

And a discussion of what is in 4.2.