Subject: [nfsv4] Meetings in July or After

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 07:17:51 -0400

It has been decided that IETF 108 will be virtual-only.  The good thing
about that is that it would allow wider participation, being cheaper and
safer than a trip to Madrid. There will be a fee, but it is much smaller
than onsite fees have been and should not pose an obstacle for most people.

What is likely to pose an obstacle is that it appears to have been decided
that virtual Madrid, will, like actual Madrid, be in CEST. This mean that
the latest 50-minute session will start at around 1600 CEST = 7AM PDT.  A
100-minute session would start even earlier.  Both of these are likely to
be difficult to schedule so I think we will wind up with one or more
virtual interim nfsv4wg meetings.

Meetings before the week of IETF 108 make sense but I'm not sure they will
be allowed. Meetings in the weeks after IETF 108 wind up conflicting with
August vacations but I'm not sure if that is all that important in present
circumstances.

I'd like to get input from the working group about:

   - Preferences for meeting dates and times including discussion of dates
   to avoid.

   - Information about what you want to hear discussed and and what you are
   topcis you are willing to present about or lead a focused discussion of.
    Although I'm not clear about meeting numbers and format, I think it makes
   sense for us have coverage of both current working group items and new
   ideas as well.

I'll be sending out my own ideas on things to discuss next week.   If we
don't want a meeting slot within IETF108 proper, as I believe is the case,
we don't have to worry about the 6/12 session request cutoff.   Still, I'd
like us to get a clear idea about this meeting cycle relatively quickly so
I'd aprreciate it we had people's input on topics within the next few weeks

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:50:58 -0400

We've had some input from Magnus regarding our near-term meeting plans.  It
appears Magnus will be on vacation in August and July 13-17.  I gather that
a virtual meeting in the last two weeks of July is a no-go.

As a result, I am proposing that we schedule one two-hour virtual interim
in the second week of July (7/6-7/10) .  To help give presenters time to
prepare, it should be later in the week.  If anyone has a problem with a
meeting 7/9 at 9AM PDT == Noon EDT == 1600 UTC == 1800 CEST, let us know
quickly.

As far as priority for meeting time:

   - First priority will be for it's relating to the current working group
   agenda, i. e. Things with current wg documents or milestones plus things
   related to rfc5661bis.  I need to hear from other people about their plans
   but my expectation is that this stuff is unlikely to take more than an
   hour. For my thoughts about use of this time, see below

   - Second priority will be for follow-up discussion of new work proposals
   made at the previous virtual meeting.  I'll have some suggestions below
   about how we might use time.

   - Third priority will be for other new work proposals.  Unsure if there
   will be any time for these so I expect that any of these that don't fit
   will be deferred to a later virtual interim to be scheduled in September.

Regarding items in the current work category:

   - I expect to take about about one half-hour to discuss things related
   to rfc5661bis.

For internationalization, I want to move to a working group document and
need review within the group.  Review outside the group resulted in Nico
telling me I was "on the right track"  *and* should write a totally
different document😊.

I expect dicussion of our security choices to take the majority of this
time.   I had expected to submit
draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization in May, but it has slipped to
around May 45th😞

Won;t be much to say about rfc5661bis.  Has been on hold waiting for sequii
to turn into an RFC and RFC editing is kind of stuck right now😖

   - I anticipate us hearing about pNFS/NVMe from David and/or Sorin.
   David indicated to me that they had reconnected with Christoph and expected
   to clarify things in June.   I think we need an update on that process.
   Not sure whether we will dicuss a document submitted in June or
   expectations regarding a document to be submitted later.   In either case,
   we will want to set a realistic milestone for this work.
   - I don't expect us to hear anything new about integrity measurement but
   will schedule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
   - I am anticipating some sort of update for rpc-over-RDMA version two
   and am assuming, for planning purposes, about ten minutes.  I need an
   update from check in the next few weeks so I can put an agenda together.

With regad to folow-up discussion from new-work discussions last time:

   - I've decided that rfc5661bis-related working group documents
   (draft-ietf-nfs4-internationlization, draft-ietf-nfsv4-security-needs,
   draft-ietf-nfsv4-security, draft-ietf-rfc5661bis) will be managed using
   github.   Hope to get Chuck's help on a presentation about how this will
   affect the writing and review process for these documents.
   - We have anther opportunity to hear from Sorin about data reduction
   attributes.  To make the time useful, we need a more substantial I-D.  If
   one cannot be made available in June, suggest moving this discussion into
   the September meeting.
   - I think there is a need for some sort of followup discussion regarding
   the directory operation performance issues discussed last time.   Due to
   lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory
   layouts.

With regard to directory delegation, it appears that a significant issue in
is non-implementation is Chuck's belief (possibly shared by others) that
any change to a directory, requires refetching the entire directory.  I
think this is incorrect and makes directory notification essentially
useless.   We might resolve this on the mailing list and I will send an
email about the issue in the next few weeks.   If there needs to be further
discussion of this issue, we will need 5-10 minutes of meeting time.

I want to follow up on Chuck's speculation of protocol help for rm -r and
would also like to discuss similar possible extensions usable for build
apllications.

With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on directory caching
, we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we will want to
say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:17 AM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - Preferences for meeting dates and times including discussion of
>    dates to avoid.
>
>
>    - Information about what you want to hear discussed and and what you
>    are topcis you are willing to present about or lead a focused discussion
>    of.   Although I'm not clear about meeting numbers and format, I think it
>    makes sense for us have coverage of both current working group items and
>    new ideas as well.
>

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:08:43 -0400

Hi Dave-

> On Jun 8, 2020, at 8:50 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> We've had some input from Magnus regarding our near-term meeting plans.  It appears Magnus will be on vacation in August and July 13-17.  I gather that a virtual meeting in the last two weeks of July is a no-go.
> 
> As a result, I am proposing that we schedule one two-hour virtual interim in the second week of July (7/6-7/10) .  To help give presenters time to prepare, it should be later in the week.  If anyone has a problem with a meeting 7/9 at 9AM PDT == Noon EDT == 1600 UTC == 1800 CEST, let us know quickly.
> 
> First priority will be for it's relating to the current working group agenda, i. e. Things with current wg documents or milestones plus things related to rfc5661bis.  I need to hear from other people about their plans but my expectation is that this stuff is unlikely to take more than an hour. For my thoughts about use of this time, see below
> Second priority will be for follow-up discussion of new work proposals made at the previous virtual meeting.  I'll have some suggestions below about how we might use time.
> Third priority will be for other new work proposals.  Unsure if there will be any time for these so I expect that any of these that don't fit will be deferred to a later virtual interim to be scheduled in September.
> I expect to take about about one half-hour to discuss things related to rfc5661bis.  
> For internationalization, I want to move to a working group document and need review within the group.  Review outside the group resulted in Nico telling me I was "on the right track"  and should write a totally different document😊.
> I expect dicussion of our security choices to take the majority of this time.   I had expected to submit draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization in May, but it has slipped to around May 45th😞 
> 
> Won;t be much to say about rfc5661bis.  Has been on hold waiting for sequii to turn into an RFC and RFC editing is kind of stuck right now😖
> I anticipate us hearing about pNFS/NVMe from David and/or Sorin.  David indicated to me that they had reconnected with Christoph and expected to clarify things in June.   I think we need an update on that process.  Not sure whether we will dicuss a document submitted in June or expectations regarding a document to be submitted later.   In either case, we will want to set a realistic milestone for this work.
> I don't expect us to hear anything new about integrity measurement but will schedule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
There has been some progress, but nothing I can discuss in a public setting yet.
> I am anticipating some sort of update for rpc-over-RDMA version two and am assuming, for planning purposes, about ten minutes.  I need an update from check in the next few weeks so I can put an agenda together.
You mentioned a while back you had some input for me regarding restructuring of the header types, so I stopped working on that document temporarily, but that has turned into a lengthy hiatus. I can restart work with what I have and present that during the interim meeting, unless you have a different thought.

> With regard to follow-up discussion from new-work discussions last time:

Should there be an item in this category to discuss the RDMA Flush document?

> I've decided that rfc5661bis-related working group documents (draft-ietf-nfs4-internationlization, draft-ietf-nfsv4-security-needs, draft-ietf-nfsv4-security, draft-ietf-rfc5661bis) will be managed using github.   Hope to get Chuck's help on a presentation about how this will affect the writing and review process for these documents.
> We have anther opportunity to hear from Sorin about data reduction attributes.  To make the time useful, we need a more substantial I-D.  If one cannot be made available in June, suggest moving this discussion into the September meeting.
> I think there is a need for some sort of followup discussion regarding the directory operation performance issues discussed last time.   Due to lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory layouts.   
> With regard to directory delegation, it appears that a significant issue in is non-implementation is Chuck's belief (possibly shared by others) that any change to a directory, requires refetching the entire directory.  I think this is incorrect and makes directory notification essentially useless.   We might resolve this on the mailing list and I will send an email about the issue in the next few weeks.   If there needs to be further discussion of this issue, we will need 5-10 minutes of meeting time.     
> 
> I want to follow up on Chuck's speculation of protocol help for rm -r and would also like to discuss similar possible extensions usable for build apllications.
> 
> With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on directory caching , we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we will want to say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.

Perhaps we could move this topic to one or two separate design calls that focus specifically on collecting and refining ideas about directory scalability. A separate series of calls would allow more time for discussion -- and could begin sooner than July.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:41:03 -0400

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - First priority will be for it's relating to the current working
>    group agenda, i. e. Things with current wg documents or milestones plus
>    things related to rfc5661bis.  I need to hear from other people about their
>    plans but my expectation is that this stuff is unlikely to take more than
>    an hour. For my thoughts about use of this time, see below
>
>
>    - Second priority will be for follow-up discussion of new work
>    proposals made at the previous virtual meeting.  I'll have some suggestions
>    below about how we might use time.
>
>
>    - Third priority will be for other new work proposals.  Unsure if
>    there will be any time for these so I expect that any of these that don't
>    fit will be deferred to a later virtual interim to be scheduled in
>    September.
>
>
>
>
>    - I don't expect us to hear anything new about integrity measurement
>    but will schedule someting if Chuck expects to have a useful update.
>

I'm guessing that it's unlikely that there willbe progress in the next few
weeks.

I hope we will be able to discuss this in September.  Let us know if there
is progresss you can talk about.

> You mentioned a while back you had some input for me regarding
> restructuring of the header types, so I stopped working on that document
> temporarily, but that has turned into a lengthy hiatus.
>

Sorry I dropped the ball on that.

> I can restart work with what I have and present that during the interim
> meeting, unless you have a different thought.
>

I think that's the best option.   Even if I remembered my proposals for
restrucuring, it getting kind of late to go through them now, given that we
want ro get this document to the IESG this year.

> Good point.  There should be.   Tom might not have anything more to say,
but even he doesn't, wE will need an update from Magnus about how the
necessary charter update process is goIng.

>
>    - I think there is a need for some sort of followup discussion
>    regarding the directory operation performance issues discussed last time.
>     Due to lack of interest, I'm dropping the idea of (non-striped) directory
>    layouts.
>
> With regard to directory delegation, it appears that a significant issue
> in is non-implementation is Chuck's belief (possibly shared by others) that
> Perhaps we could move this topic to one or two separate design calls that
> focus specifically on collecting and refining ideas about directory
> scalability. A separate series of calls would allow more time for
> discussion -- and could begin sooner than July.
>

OK, but I think with this will count, in some sense as a virual interim,
with notice requirements (and probably minutes of some sort).

I think we wll need 5 minutes (being liberal about it) in the July meeting
to report to the working group about what was and wasn't decided.

To get the notice requirement out of way:

I am proposing that we hold a short (maximum of one hour) discussion about
directory scalabity issues in two weeks at 9AM PDT on 6/22.  Not sure if we
will need a webex.   If there are three participants or fewer, we
willl probably get by with just a phone call.  Please let me know if you
are interested in attending and contributing.   Whatever is discussed will
be presented at the July interim meeting.

---

From: Tom Talpey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:31:15 -0400

> necessary charter update process is goIng.

As I mentioned in my presentation, I'm waiting for the outcome of the
charter discussion before moving the draft forward, and continuing the
discussion, in NFSv4. I don't view either of those to require a meeting.

Tom.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:03:07 -0400

> discussion, in NFSv4. I don't view either of those to require a meeting.

Understood.   So I suppose we could use some time for Magnus to explain to
the group how this is going, unless he prefers to deal with this via email.

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

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:05:59 -0400

Given the absence of objections to the proposed meeting times, I will be
setting up a webex meeting on 7/9 at 9AM PDT == Noon EDT == 6PM CEST.  The
meeting will be scheduled for two hours, but depending on what there is to
discuss, may turn out to be shorter.

I'd like to get a preliminary agenda out soon, so, if you have
something you want to talk about, or think it is important for the group to
hear about, please let us know as soon as you can.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We've had some input from Magnus regarding our near-term meeting plans.
> It appears Magnus will be on vacation in August and July 13-17.  I gather
> that a virtual meeting in the last two weeks of July is a no-go.
>
> Won;t be much to say about rfc5661bis.  Has been on hold waiting for
> sequii to turn into an RFC and RFC editing is kind of stuck right now😖
>
>
>> What is likely to pose an obstacle is that it appears to have been
>> decided that virtual Madrid, will, like actual Madrid, be in CEST. This
>> mean that the latest 50-minute session will start at around 1600 CEST = 7AM
>> PDT.  A 100-minute session would start even earlier.  Both of these are
>> likely to be difficult to schedule so I think we will wind up with one or
>> more virtual interim nfsv4wg meetings.
>>
>> Meetings before the week of IETF 108 make sense but I'm not sure they
>> will be allowed. Meetings in the weeks after IETF 108 wind up conflicting
>> with August vacations but I'm not sure if that is all that important in
>> present circumstances.
>>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:45:54 -0400

> I am proposing that we hold a short (maximum of one hour) discussion
> about directory scalabity issues in two weeks at 9AM PDT on 6/22.  Not
> sure if we will need a webex.   If there are three participants or fewer,
we > willl probably get by with just a phone call.  Please let me know
if you ar
> interested in attending and contributing.   Whatever is discussed will be
> presented at the July interim meeting.

Are you OK with the proposed time and format?

As nobody else has proposed attending, I think we could address this with a
simple phone call, and we can report on what we did and didn't decide at
the 7/9 meeting.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:41 PM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> With regard to the effect of access-based enumeration on directory
>> caching , we will want to follow up sufficiently to clarify what we will
>> want to say (evenually) in rfc5661bis.
>>
>>

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:44:50 -0400

> On Jun 18, 2020, at 5:45 PM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > sure if we will need a webex.   If there are three participants or fewer, we > willl probably get by with just a phone call.  Please let me know if you ar
> As nobody else has proposed attending, I think we could address this with a simple phone call, and we can report on what we did and didn't decide at the 7/9 meeting.

I am indeed available at noon on June 22 for a phone call or Webex.

--
Chuck Lever