Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda items)

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 06:44:07 -0500

I'm not sure whether I'd be able to physically attend, but I'm assuming
facilities for remote participation will be available.

I'll need 30-40 minutes for extension-related discussion:

   - One short part will be primarily retrospective, explaining the
   consequences of the new extension model.  The content will not be changed
   substantially by the completion (or not) of an updated draft for umask, or
   the progress of AD Evaluation or IESG discussion of the three
   versioning-related documents.
   - Another part will be a short proposal for an extension that is a bit
   bigger than those that have been done so far.  No document has yet been
   submitted but I expect to submit one before the deadline.  The idea is to
   provide some (privileged) clients the ability to be notified of changes in
   the stateid set of other clients.   By treating pNFS data servers as such
   privileged clients, we could define an optional standard way for metadata
   servers and data servers to interact, in providing pNFS file support.  It
   appears that this could also support the tight coupling mode of flex files.

We will need some time to discuss RDMA-related issues but Chuck and I need
to talk about the length of time needed and who will talk about what.  Two
possible ways of dividing things up:

   - Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One including
   rfc56667bis, while I cover stuff related to Version two including
   rpcrdma-version-two, rpcrdma-rtrext, and nfsulb (to make the NFS ULBs
   transport-generic).
   - Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One (including
   rfc56667bis) and rpcrdma-version-two, while I cover stuff related to
   Version Two extensions including rpcrdma-rtrext and nfsulb.

I hope we can hear from Christoph regarding NVMe-related stuff, whether he
is able to be physically present or not.  In addition, I'd like us to her
about the progress of the scsi layout draft.  That took eight months to go
from -00 to working group consensus :-) and over thirteen months after that
and it is not out yet :-(. I think we have a general problem and need to
understand it better before we try to fix it.  Hearing from Christoph would
help us understand what is going on.

Other people may have other items so it appears to me that the issue not
the length of the session but how many.  If you do decide to go with two
sessions, one possible division would be:

   - One session with everything performance-related: RDMA, NVMe, and
   possibly Andy's trunking-relating work, if he wants to talk about that.
   - Everything else including the extension stuff.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:48 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> Hi.  IETF 98 is coming up (Chicago) and the cutoff date for meeting
> requests is Feb 10th.
>
> Please send in your agenda requests, etc. so that we can determine if we
> will be meeting in Chicago and duration of meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Spencer S.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
>

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:05:47 +0100

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:44:07AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> I hope we can hear from Christoph regarding NVMe-related stuff,

I might do another minor update of the NVMe layout, I just need to find
some time.

> whether he
> is able to be physically present or not.

I won't make it to Chicago, but I plan to be in Prague in July.

> In addition, I'd like us to her

It's in the RFC Editor stage now, and I just had an interaction with
them yesterday.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:51:40 -0500

> I won't make it to Chicago, but I plan to be in Prague in July.

I hope you'll consider remote participation.  I did this for IETF96 in
Berlin and it seemed to go OK.  Of course, I had  to get up at some ungodly
time in the morning but you won't have that problem since the time zone
issues are reversed (unless you are in Asia in late March).

> It's in the RFC Editor stage now, and I just had an interaction with

I saw the MISSREF.  I''m guessing this is the SAM-5 issue.  I went looking
for it and the result was sobering.  This started in 2004 and it is now in
the ANSI approval process.  The page said 65% complete,, which might mean
this is years away.

It seems like the IETF is headed this way (rough consensus, running code,
interminable review) which would be a shame.  I'd like to understand why
things are getting slower and slower and see what can be done to improve
the process.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:02:43 +0000

On the topic of the MISREF, Christoph has responded with the references that have been published that will suffice to move the RFC forward.  We are awaiting response from the RFC editor.

Spencer

From: nfsv4 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of David Noveck
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda items)

> I won't make it to Chicago, but I plan to be in Prague in July.

I hope you'll consider remote participation.  I did this for IETF96 in Berlin and it seemed to go OK.  Of course, I had  to get up at some ungodly time in the morning but you won't have that problem since the time zone issues are reversed (unless you are in Asia in late March).

> It's in the RFC Editor stage now, and I just had an interaction with

I saw the MISSREF.  I''m guessing this is the SAM-5 issue.  I went looking for it and the result was sobering.  This started in 2004 and it is now in the ANSI approval process.  The page said 65% complete,, which might mean this is years away.

It seems like the IETF is headed this way (rough consensus, running code, interminable review) which would be a shame.  I'd like to understand why things are getting slower and slower and see what can be done to improve the process.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:12:20 -0500

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:44 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure whether I'd be able to physically attend, but I'm assuming facilities for remote participation will be available.
> 
> 	• One short part will be primarily retrospective, explaining the consequences of the new extension model.  The content will not be changed substantially by the completion (or not) of an updated draft for umask, or the progress of AD Evaluation or IESG discussion of the three versioning-related documents.
> 	• Another part will be a short proposal for an extension that is a bit bigger than those that have been done so far.  No document has yet been submitted but I expect to submit one before the deadline.  The idea is to provide some (privileged) clients the ability to be notified of changes in the stateid set of other clients.   By treating pNFS data servers as such privileged clients, we could define an optional standard way for metadata servers and data servers to interact, in providing pNFS file support.  It appears that this could also support the tight coupling mode of flex files.
> We will need some time to discuss RDMA-related issues but Chuck and I need to talk about the length of time needed and who will talk about what.  Two possible ways of dividing things up:
> 	• Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One including rfc56667bis, while I cover stuff related to Version two including rpcrdma-version-two, rpcrdma-rtrext, and nfsulb (to make the NFS ULBs transport-generic).
> 	• Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One (including rfc56667bis) and rpcrdma-version-two, while I cover stuff related to Version Two extensions including rpcrdma-rtrext and nfsulb.

Although Chicago is in my backyard, the OpenFabrics developer's
workshop is being held the same week in Austin. The workshop PC
has requested that I prepare a talk on NFS/RDMA. Acceptance is
pending, so things still might change, but right now I'm not
expecting to attend IETF 98 either physically or virtually.
Prague is a possibility.

Since Berlin, pending work items:

- rfc5666-implementation-experience has been allowed to expire
to help reduce AD/IESG workload

- rfc5666bis is in IETF Last Call now

- rpcrdma-bidrection is in IETF Last Call now

- rfc5667bis is active, targeting WGLC sometime in April

- rpcrdma-version-two is active. Noveck's rtr-xchar and
Lever's Remote Invalidation work have been integrated, and
improvements have been made to error handling.

WRT to these items there are currently no process issues I'm
aware of that require the attention of the whole WG + chairs.

> I hope we can hear from Christoph regarding NVMe-related stuff, whether he is able to be physically present or not.

I'd like to hear about the pNFS push mode layout work, but I
realize that the first step is an I-D, and that Christoph is
completely overbooked anyway. I can happily wait until
Prague.

> In addition, I'd like us to her about the progress of the scsi layout draft.  That took eight months to go from -00 to working group consensus :-) and over thirteen months after that and it is not out yet :-(. I think we have a general problem and need to understand it better before we try to fix it.  Hearing from Christoph would help us understand what is going on.
> 
> Other people may have other items so it appears to me that the issue not the length of the session but how many.  If you do decide to go with two sessions, one possible division would be:
> 	• One session with everything performance-related: RDMA, NVMe, and possibly Andy's trunking-relating work, if he wants to talk about that.
> 	• Everything else including the extension stuff.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:48 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi.  IETF 98 is coming up (Chicago) and the cutoff date for meeting requests is Feb 10th.
> 
> Please send in your agenda requests, etc. so that we can determine if we will be meeting in Chicago and duration of meeting.
> 
> Thanks,
> Spencer S.
> 
> 

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:40:25 -0500

It looks like people would prefer Prague to Chicago.  No surprise there.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >       • One short part will be primarily retrospective, explaining the
> >       • Another part will be a short proposal for an extension that is a
> bit bigger than those that have been done so far.  No document has yet been
> > We will need some time to discuss RDMA-related issues but Chuck and I
> need to talk about the length of time needed and who will talk about what.
> Two possible ways of dividing things up:
> >       • Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One including
> >       • Chuck could talk about stuff related to Version One (including
> > I hope we can hear from Christoph regarding NVMe-related stuff, whether
> he is able to be physically present or not.
>
> > In addition, I'd like us to her about the progress of the scsi layout
> draft.  That took eight months to go from -00 to working group consensus
> :-) and over thirteen months after that and it is not out yet :-(. I think
> we have a general problem and need to understand it better before we try to
> fix it.  Hearing from Christoph would help us understand what is going on.
> >
> >       • One session with everything performance-related: RDMA, NVMe, and

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:00:11 +0000

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:48 AM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I’ve got some stuff in the works I’d like to make a presentation on, some minor extensions.

I probably will not have drafts available - but I do want to get buy offs on the direction.

Do not return Open State if a Delegation is also issued - 10 minutes
Soft Quiescing of Writes for Snapshotting - 15 minutes

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:41:35 -0500

> Do not return Open State if a Delegation is also issued

I guess the idea here is that, if the delegation allows you to do the open
locally, the sever might as well let you do that

Sounds good to me.

> Soft Quiescing of Writes for Snapshotting

I approve of the direction, but there may be issues deciding on the
appropriate distance (exactly how soft this is to be).

i can see how this would be useful.

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:39:31 -0500

For what it's worth, I'll try to make it mainly for versioning
discussion, but I'd only give about a 50/50 chance.  It's a somewhat
complicated week for me due to a kid's birthday and some
still-in-planning travel both the weeks before and after, so I may not
be able to.

--b.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:18:39 -0500

If you want to hear (or participate in) a versioning discussion there are
options that can simplify travel planing;

   - If we do meet, you can participate remotely.  It may not be ideal but
   it is better than not participating.
   - If we don't meet, we can still arrange a conference call, if there is
   enough interest.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:52:29 -0800

My thanks to everyone on input for agenda items.

Given the current list and discussion, I suggest that we skip the Chicago
IETF meeting.

As suggested, it does seem prudent to schedule a "design" conference call
to cover open items more efficiently than email and would garner effective
attendance.

If I don't hear any objections by Friday morning (Feb 10), I will register
our non-meeting intent for Chicago.

Spencer

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - If we do meet, you can participate remotely.  It may not be ideal
>    but it is better than not participating.
>    - If we don't meet, we can still arrange a conference call, if there
>    is enough interest.
>
>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:16:53 -0500

On  2/1/2017, Spencer wrote:
> On the topic of the MISREF, Christoph has responded with the references
that have been published that will suffice to move the RFC forward.

"will suffice" or "should suffice"?

> We are awaiting response from the RFC editor.

Thirteen  days later, the document is still in MISSREF and appears not to
have moved forward
at all.  Maybe something has happened that I'm unaware of but it may be
that you are still
waiting for a response from the RFC editor.  Has there been a response yet,
or at least some sort of an ETA provided?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>
> On the topic of the MISREF, Christoph has responded with the references
> that have been published that will suffice to move the RFC forward.  We are
> awaiting response from the RFC editor.
>
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
> *From:* nfsv4 [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *David Noveck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:52 AM
> *To:* Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [nfsv4] IETF 98 - NFSv4 WG meeting (soliciting agenda
> items)
>
>
>
> >> whether he