Re: IETF 106 NFSv4 WG meeting

> Recognizing that your topic request deadline is tomorrow, since IETF
> 105, here is the progress on the five documents I have immediate
> deliverables for:

Thanks for providing this helpful summary.   Since I am co-author of some
of your documents, it saves me the work of doing my own summary :-)

> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement/

> In August, I presented this proposed NFS extension to the Linux security
> community. The discussion is ongoing. I expect this extension will be
> accepted and merged into Linux. The document still needs some editorial
> work before I request WGLC.

The discussion at IETF105 was very helpful in clarifying the workng group
issues with this document.   Now all you have to deal is juggle the issues
between the working group and the Linux commnity :-(.  Despite the progress
we made at IETF105, WGLC for this document still might be "interesting".


> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls/

> There are some pending review comments that need to be integrated into
> this document before I submit a revision that can face another SecDir
> review.

It seems to me that this document is getting very close to being
WGLC-worthy.   Once the working group shepherding crisis is
addressed, we should be thinking about a milestone date for this.


> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/

> This document is Waiting for Write-Up.

It's been held up for a number of months by the shepherding crisis.   I
expect Magnus to resolve this before IETF 107.

In my milestone review at IETF 105, I gave 9/2019 as the expected date for
Final Submission and worried that I might be being unduly pessimistic.  It
now turns out I was being over-optimistic.

>* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two/

> I'm working on fleshing out the two technical items discussed during
> IETF 105: a more flexible credit management mechanism, and a simple
> mechanism for presenting host authentication material. When this work
> is complete I will submit a draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two-00.

I think people are not paying the attention to this that they need to.   I
think
that has to change once rpc-tls progreses.   Now that rpc-tlse has raised
the
profile of client authentication, we will need such a mechanism for
RPC-over-RDMA
and version two is the only realistic possiility.

I think there will need to be a talk about this work at IETF107.  I'm hoping
that some prototype work will have started by that time.

> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/

> My co-author is moving this document forward.

Slowly :-(

I think we are past the errata issue on this, which turned out only to
involve a
single errata (id 2006).   I'm ready to submit a -02.   If I understand
Magnus's plan
correctly, there will be a two week last-call for that and the shepherding
step will be
bypassed, avoiding the consequences of the shepherding crisis.

> * Assistance with rfc5661bis and RFC 5661 errata

> This is work that has arisen since IETF 105.

The need has become obvious since IETF105 but that need has
been bulding up over many years.   Thanks for your help in working
on this.

>Among these items there is nothing urgent that requires Working Group
>attention before IETF 107 in March 2020.

There are urgent items (including dealing with the shepherding crisis) but
they
would not be advanced by people taking a bunch of twenty-hour plane flights.
In any case, the way the IETF is structured, there is not much we can do
to help in dealing with these issues.   I think we have to rely on Magnus
to
resolve these issues and then discuss the adequacy of those resolutions at
IETF107.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:33 PM Chuck Lever <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer-
>
> tl/dr; I require no agenda time for an nfsv4 meeting during IETF 106.
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2019, at 5:13 PM, spencer shepler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Scheduling requests are now open for IETF 106.
> >
> > I would like to solicit input from the working group as to the need to
> meet at IETF106.
> >
> > Please let me know by Sept 20th if we have agenda items that necessitate
> an IETF106 meeting.
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/106/
>
> Recognizing that your topic request deadline is tomorrow, since IETF
> 105, here is the progress on the five documents I have immediate
> deliverables for:
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement/
>
> In August, I presented this proposed NFS extension to the Linux security
> community. The discussion is ongoing. I expect this extension will be
> accepted and merged into Linux. The document still needs some editorial
> work before I request WGLC.
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls/
>
> There are some pending review comments that need to be integrated into
> this document before I submit a revision that can face another SecDir
> review.
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/
>
> This document is Waiting for Write-Up.
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two/
>
> I'm working on fleshing out the two technical items discussed during
> IETF 105: a more flexible credit management mechanism, and a simple
> mechanism for presenting host authentication material. When this work
> is complete I will submit a draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two-00.
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns/
>
> My co-author is moving this document forward.
>
>
> I have a few new work items, including this document:
>
>
> * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-comp-stor-reqs/
>
> I plan to discuss this document next week in person with the SNIA
> Computational Storage technical working group.
>
>
> * Assistance with rfc5661bis and RFC 5661 errata
>
> This is work that has arisen since IETF 105.
>
>
> Among these items there is nothing urgent that requires Working Group
> attention before IETF 107 in March 2020. Therefore I require no agenda
> time for an nfsv4 meeting during IETF 106. If there are enough requests
> for a meeting I do have things that can be discussed.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

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