Subject: [nfsv4] IETF 107 draft agenda planning

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:52:13 -0500

Reminder: IETF 107 is March 22 - 27 in Vancouver, CA.

In a recent thread, Spencer Shepler said:
> I would appreciate it if the WG spend some time in building a draft agenda so that content and schedule can be built.

I can start by listing the items I'm working on and what kind
of meeting resources IMO might be needed for discussion. I'm
going to assume that we will avoid "status reporting" here,
and strive to use the meeting time mainly for interactive
discussion of open questions.

- rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data: Hoping this will be published by March.
In any event, no meeting time needed for this document.

- rpc-tls: I'm hoping this document will be in post-WG publication
process in March. I anticipate there will be no need for meeting
time for this work, unless something changes significantly.

- rpcrdma-version-two: The protocol is nearing feature completion.
I anticipate this may be in WGLC in March, but it might need
further discussion. Let's say 15 minutes on this one.

- integrity-measurement: I want to have an IMA metadata format
document in draft form for this meeting. Let's say 15 minutes
for this discussion. In addition, we could schedule a phone call
or two before March to get through the objections to the current
document.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:50:08 -0800

Appreciate the heads up, Chuck.

Spencer

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:52 AM Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I would appreciate it if the WG spend some time in building a draft
> agenda so that content and schedule can be built.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:05:15 -0500

> agenda so that content and schedule can be built.

The draft agenda will be needed about two weeks before the meeting, i.e.
about four months from now.  Still, I think it makes sense to start the
planning process, as you have done, early although, given that things may
change between now and then, we want to retain some flexibility/agility.

I think we should plan based on the framework that Magnus has suggested:
one session devoted to the working group's current agenda and a second
about things for future consideration.

As far as the first session, I would need some time to discuss matters
related to rfc5661bis and related documents. I'm guessing 30-40 minutes
will be needed.

As far as possible contributions to the second session, this is kind of
early, but I expect people to come up with interesting ideas.

For my own part,  I'll be sending out a proposal for some topics (about  20
minutes worth) in the next few weeks.

> discussion of open questions.

I anticipate there will be some need for status-related time in the first
session. Let's say five minutes. I hope we will be hearing from those with
active wg documents and/or milestones.  The critical areas requiring wg
consideration of status are for those documents not otherwise represented.

> - rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data: Hoping this will be published by March.

Me too.

I sure hope not, given that the document was finished in June.

> time for this work, unless something changes significantly.

Part of the 5661bis discussion will be about security but I think the role
of rpc-tls will be as a base for what it is possible to do in a revised v4
security framework.

> further discussion. Let's say 15 minutes on this one.

Sounds about right.

Note that this document also has implications for the new security
framework, just as rpc-tls does.

> for this discussion.

That's reasonable although it is possible to not get a real resolution no
matter how much time we spend :-(

In addition, we could schedule a phone call
> or two before March to get through the objections to the current

I think we should do that and use the meeting time to make sure that
everyone is ok with whatever resolution was reached previously.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:30:47 -0800

> change between now and then, we want to retain some flexibility/agility.

Yes, that is correct.  A formal agenda is needed two weeks prior to the
meeting.  I was attempting to respond to your earlier comments about
needing to define the meeting content with enough advanced notice so that
potential attendees could assess and plan their participation accordingly.
My apologies if I didn't ask for that appropriately.

> about things for future consideration.

Is that 2 x 2.5 hours sessions or 2 x 1 hour sessions.

> related to rfc5661bis and related documents. I'm guessing 30-40 minutes

Is there a reason that we are waiting 4 months before discussing this
information?  I hope that you have a plan to introduce these ideas prior to
the face-to-face meeting such that there can be discussion of what plan to
undertake with rfc5661bis.

> For my own part,  I'll be sending out a proposal for some topics (about
> 20 minutes worth) in the next few weeks.
>

I hope, again, that these ideas can be discussed on the working alias prior
to the meeting to garner wider feedback and input.  I still doubt that
in-person presence will be broad so capturing the valuable input from the
email threads would be great.

> consideration of status are for those documents not otherwise represented.

I would prefer that we stop making the face-to-face working group meetings
status meetings.

If there is status to report, put it into a paragraph or two and send it to
the working group alias such that it is recorded, broadly disseminated.
Much better use of everyone's time.

> Sounds about right..
> everyone is ok with whatever resolution was reached previously
>

Put them on the calendar and plan ahead.

2 weeks notice and the US holiday season is starting soon.

Spencer

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:45:11 -0500

> potential attendees could assess and plan their participation accordingly.

Fair enough.  However, especially with regard to this specific meeting, the
agenda details are not critical.  For this meeting the critical elements
are:

   - That Magnus has made clear that we need to make substantial progress
   on our existing agenda.

I expect people to decide to attend (whether remotely or in-person) based
on whether they think that agenda is important and are prepared to help,
rather than on whether they want to hear about one pariculrar document.

   - The fact that we have a sessions devoted to new ideas, both for
   protocol extensions and as far as new ways for us to do business, if we
   can.   I remember that both of these had trouble getting time in recent
   meetings and that Chuck's ideas in the latter ctegory were dropped from
   IET105 because of lack of time.

For the latter category people will make decisions based on items scheduled
for discussion.  However, they might also make decisions based on ideas
they want to present.  For that reason, we need to leave some free time for
late deciders although, it might be only a half-hour making it necessary
for late deciders to fight-it-out for working group interest.

No issue there..

> Is that 2 x 2.5 hours sessions or 2 x 1 hour sessions.

We don't know yet.  2.5-hour sessions might not be available but I feel
that at least two hours will be needed for the first session. For the
second session, we will have a better idea in about a month.

> information?

There was a lot of discussion at IETF105. The discussion should be captured
in the minutes and the slides are available onthe web.

The thing holding up further work in this area is the uncertain state of
rfc5661sesqui. Since that document would be the base for the bis, I have
been staying away from bis issues until the fate of sesqui is clearer.

I hope that you have a plan to introduce these ideas prior to the
> face-to-face meeting such that there can be discussion of what plan to

I'll send something once I am clearer about the fate of sesqui

> I hope, again, that these ideas can be discussed on the working alias
> prior to the meeting to garner wider feedback and input.
>

As I said, I will send something out in the next few weeks

I still doubt that in-person presence will be broad so capturing the
> valuable input from the email threads would be great.
>

Also, if there is no interest, there is no point getting a presentation
together

> I would prefer that we stop making the face-to-face working group meetings

I asked for five minutes. I don't understand the reaction.

> If there is status to report, put it into a paragraph or two and send it
> to the working group alias such that it is recorded, broadly disseminated.

I disagree. If the status is that nobody is working on something important
or that a milestone date is unreachable, putting it in an email paragraph
makes it easy to forget about.

Since our approach to email will not accommodate a paragraph in 40-point
bold Arial Black saying "We're screwed", it is sometimes necessary to have
status discussions at face-to-face IETF meetings.

>> Part of the 5661bis discussion will be about security but I think the
>> role of rpc-tls will be as a base for what it is possible to do in a
>> revised v4 security framework.
>>
>>

I'm sure Chuck will do that when he thinks it would be productive.

>
> 2 weeks notice and the US holiday season is starting soon
>

Sure, but this is a case on which sooner is not necessarily better.