Subject: [nfsv4] Milestone for RDMA pNFS layout type

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:20:25 -0500

I think we need to get rid of the milestone for the RDMA layout type for
pNFS.   The target date has already past (it is  9/2019) and given the fact
that there no current document and nobody to work on it now, I think we
should drop this and establish a new milestone when we have a viable plan
to get it done.

My impression was that this was  discssed at IETF 105 and  the general
opinion was that there was no point in keep this in existence.  However I
am unable to verify that.

In any case, we need a WG consensus to drop this so, if you feel we should
do something else, send a message to the working group list, within the
next week, explaining why you feel we should keep this milestone in
existence

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:02:31 -0500

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 11:20 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I think we need to get rid of the milestone for the RDMA layout type for pNFS.   The target date has already past (it is  9/2019) and given the fact that there no current document and nobody to work on it now, I think we should drop this and establish a new milestone when we have a viable plan to get it done.
> 
> My impression was that this was  discssed at IETF 105 and  the general opinion was that there was no point in keep this in existence.  However I am unable to verify that.
> 
> In any case, we need a WG consensus to drop this so, if you feel we should do something else, send a message to the working group list, within the next week, explaining why you feel we should keep this milestone in existence

No objection from me.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:01:25 -0500

Since it has been a week and there have been no objections, I will now
delete this milestone subject to Magnus's formal approval.

BTW, Beepy and I have discussed rewording existing unachieved miletones
that use the phrase "submit final document" to "request publication",
mainly because nobody is sure exactly when the former happens.  Given that
we have agreed to do this, I'm going to make those changes to the milestone
wording subject to Magnus's formal approval.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:02 PM Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > In any case, we need a WG consensus to drop this so, if you feel we
> should do something else, send a message to the working group list, within
> the next week, explaining why you feel we should keep this milestone in
> existence
>
> No objection from me.
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>