Subject: [nfsv4] IETF 99 - July 16-21 - Prague (request for WG on meeting)

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:24:50 -0700

The working group and BOF scheduling for IETF 99 opened today.

I would like to query the group to see if we have a need to meet in Prague.

Please provide your feedback (first round at least) by the end of April.
This should allow for travel approval and planning.

Thanks,
Spencer

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:37:07 -0400

> On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:24 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

Just to get started, here are some possible topics.

Technical areas:

- NFS/RDMA next steps
- NFSv4.1 multi-path
- NFSv4.1 migration update

Process areas:

- WG charter clean up

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:30:12 -0400

> > I would like to query the group to see if we have a need to meet in
Prague.

We have a need to meet and Prague is an opportunity that we might take well
advantage of.

> > Please provide your feedback (first round at least) by the end of April.

My feedback is that we've got to stop not meeting like this.

I think the working group last met at IETF96 in Berlin.

Since then, we've had an unfortunate series of distant locations, and
unfortunate schedule conflicts, but the reasons we have not met is not that
we haven't had things to discuss.  As it will soon be a year since the last
meeting, the need has grown,

> > This should allow for travel approval and planning.

In some cases there might be travel disapproval, but if so, we should plan
to take advantage of the option of remote participation.

> Just to get started, here are some possible topics.

These are all possible topics for Prague but these are essential to come to
a conclusion.  A face-to-face discussion would be
preferred but if Prague is a logistical problem for some, it is better to
address them in a series of conference calls, than to
put them off for four to twelve months.

> Technical areas:

These are informed by technical needs, but the important question is how do
we move
these forward so process issues cannot be excluded from the discussion.

> - NFS/RDMA next steps

I agree that this is an important topic.

> - NFSv4.1 multi-path

I would like to discuss this but, if this is doable in NFSv4.0 without
major additional effort, we should address that as well.

> - NFSv4.1 migration update

I'll probably talk about this.

This may be early in the morning my time if travel approval doesn't work
out.  I just checked if
caffeine needed would be an allowable business expense for tax purposes but
the answer
seems to be no. :-(

> Process areas:

If you read our current charter, all of the items above are officially
out-of-scope. Sigh!

> - WG charter clean up

I believe this was discussed at IETF96 in Berlin but there was no firm
action plan.
I think it is long past time for this issue to be addressed and acted upon.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:28:52 +0200

I would like to meet.

Now that the scsi layout should be done I'd like to restart work on
the "Using the Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout with NVMe" draft and there
might be some issues.

I've also been prototyping a RDMA layout for byte addressable storage,
for which I hope to have a draft by then, and I'd love to join the
general discussion of RDMA topics.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:59:19 -0400

> I would like to meet.

It is starting to look as though  the question will not be whether we have
a session but how many.

> Now that the scsi layout should be done

I noticed this was finally put into AUTH48 :-)

> I'd like to restart work on
> the "Using the Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout with NVMe" draft

That would be nice.

> and there

Not sure what issues you are referring  to, but I would like to hear about
this
work.

> for which I hope to have a draft by then,

Would like to see this as soon as possible,but spec submission blackout
might get
in the way.  So, if it does get in the way, we could look at the slideware
at the
meeting and read the draft as soon as it is available.

> and I'd love to join the

Sounds good.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:28:28 -0400

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I would like to meet.
> 

I have cycles to help with a draft, if you'd like to offload
some of that work.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:07 +0200

> I have cycles to help with a draft, if you'd like to offload

Drafting should be easy - I'll need to get my prototype into a shape where
I even want to document it.

---

From: "Adamson, Andy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:08:11 +0000

I would also like to meet and clear up NFS4 and NFS4.1 mulitpath.

-->Andy

________________________________
From: nfsv4 <[email-masked]> on behalf of Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:14:07 AM
To: Chuck Lever
Cc: Christoph Hellwig; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] IETF 99 - July 16-21 - Prague (request for WG on meeting)