Subject: [nfsv4] IETF 107 Agendas needed in early March

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:17:29 -0500

I need to put together Agendas for the two sessions we have scheduled at
IETF 107. I need to upload them by 3/11.  I'd appreciate it if everyone who
anticipates speaking sends me a brief (one or two sentences) description
that I can incorporate in the agenda.  If your talk is associated with a
submitted draft, that fact should be noted in the description.  Note that
the draft submission cutoff is 3/9 (23:59 UTC).

Reviewing plans for the first session, to deal with the working group's
current agenda, I expect the following items to be addressed.  If you see
anything missing or wrong please, let me know soon.  Also, if the time
allocated is an issue, let me know about your concerns.  The order below
has not had much attention.  Let me know if you have any suggestions on
ordering.

   - Tom talking about delstid (15 minutes)
   - Chuck talking about integrity measurement (20 minutes).
   - Sorin talking about the NVMe pNFS document (20 minutes)
   - Dave talking about  internationalization cleanup (10 minutes)
   - Dave talking about security revision to be referenced in rfc5661bis
   (20 minutes)
   - Dave talking about other rfc5661bis issues (10 minutes)

With regard to the second session, to deal with future matters, things are
not as fully defined, but I expect brief descriptions for the items below.
Given that the time is not fully allocated, it is time for those who might
have a topic they'd like to present to make the group aware of it.  This
includes suggestions for possible new work as well contributions relating
to new (presumably better) ways of doing the working group's work.  Note
that remote participation is an option for presenters and there are
unlikely to be troublesome scheduling issues for presenters in the Americas.

   - Chuck will be talking about the (poor) performance of directory
   operations (10 minutes).
   - Chuck will be discussing requirements for computational storage (10
   minutes) .
   - Dave will be discussing possible future work regarding te
   parallelization of directory operations  (15 minutes)
   - Sorin will be discussing data reduction attributes (15 minutes).
   - Chuck will be leading a discussion of the document review process (10
   minutes).
   - Chuck will be giving a talk about using github for managing personal
   drafts and Working Group documents (10 minutes).

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:28:47 -0500

Hi Dave-

> On Feb 10, 2020, at 12:17 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I need to put together Agendas for the two sessions we have scheduled at IETF 107. I need to upload them by 3/11.  I'd appreciate it if everyone who anticipates speaking sends me a brief (one or two sentences) description that I can incorporate in the agenda.  If your talk is associated with a submitted draft, that fact should be noted in the description.  Note that the draft submission cutoff is 3/9 (23:59 UTC).
> 
> Reviewing plans for the first session, to deal with the working group's current agenda, I expect the following items to be addressed.  If you see anything missing or wrong please, let me know soon.  Also, if the time allocated is an issue, let me know about your concerns.  The order below has not had much attention.  Let me know if you have any suggestions on ordering.
> 	• Tom talking about delstid (15 minutes)
> 	• Chuck talking about integrity measurement (20 minutes).
> 	• Sorin talking about the NVMe pNFS document (20 minutes)
> 	• Dave talking about  internationalization cleanup (10 minutes)
> 	• Dave talking about security revision to be referenced in rfc5661bis (20 minutes)
> 	• Dave talking about other rfc5661bis issues (10 minutes)

Mentioning this again: As rpcrdma-version-two is a current WG milestone, is
there a need to discuss that document and/or draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfs-ulb-v2
during the first session?

> With regard to the second session, to deal with future matters, things are not as fully defined, but I expect brief descriptions for the items below. Given that the time is not fully allocated, it is time for those who might have a topic they'd like to present to make the group aware of it.  This includes suggestions for possible new work as well contributions relating to new (presumably better) ways of doing the working group's work.  Note that remote participation is an option for presenters and there are unlikely to be troublesome scheduling issues for presenters in the Americas.
> 	• Chuck will be talking about the (poor) performance of directory operations (10 minutes).
> 	• Chuck will be discussing requirements for computational storage (10 minutes) .
> 	• Dave will be discussing possible future work regarding te parallelization of directory operations  (15 minutes)
> 	• Sorin will be discussing data reduction attributes (15 minutes).
> 	• Chuck will be leading a discussion of the document review process (10 minutes).
> 	• Chuck will be giving a talk about using github for managing personal drafts and Working Group documents (10 minutes).

Missing from the second session, and perhaps more important than either
computational storage or document review is a discussion of future RPC
transports.

 - RPC-on-TLS: possible support for enabling user certs or EAP
 - RPC-on-QUIC: after basic RPC-on-TLS is published, where to begin
 - RPC-on-MPTCP: are there any standards actions required to support it?

Is there other work in this area? Do we want to set this topic aside until
there is an Internet-Draft?

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 05:19:24 -0500

> during the first session?

Yes there is.  Somehow I screwed up and dropped this. Is ten minutes ok?

> computational storage or document review is a discussion of future RPC

Agree with regard to computational storage but would like to keep the
document review discussion.  Do you have time to lead that discussion and
address future RPC transports issues as well?

>  - RPC-on-TLS: possible support for enabling user certs or EAP

Personally, I'd be OK putting this off but I sense that others feel
differently. It makes sense to have the discussion.

I think we need to set expectations/priorities about this.

It would help to get clarity on this, so that those interested in
prototyping know what their path forward is.

> Is there other work in this area?

I don't know.

Do we want to set this topic aside until
> there is an Internet-Draft.
>

No.  I think we need a discussion of what specification work and prototype
work it makes sense to do in the future

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:57:23 -0500

> On Feb 14, 2020, at 5:19 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

Can you make it 15 minutes? Steal 5 minutes from the integrity measurement
presentation.

> Agree with regard to computational storage but would like to keep the document review discussion.  Do you have time to lead that discussion and address future RPC transports issues as well?

"that discussion" -- do you mean document review? I sent you private mail
last week with my presentation abstracts. If you missed it, I can resend.

I can cover "future RPC transports" if no-one else wants to.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:14:28 -0500

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 9:57 AM Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Can you make it 15 minutes?

Yes

Steal 5 minutes from the integrity measurement
> presentation.

Not sure that is necessary.  Will send a preliminary agenda next week

>
> "that discussion" -- do you mean document review?

Yes

I sent you private mail
> last week with my presentation abstracts.

Thanks.

If you missed it, I can resend.

Not necessary.

> I can cover "future RPC transports" if no-one else wants to.

Since you think this is important, it makes sense if you do it.  I don't
think you'll have to fight anybody over it