Re: IETF 107 draft agenda planning

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 1:52 PM Chuck Lever <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>

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.


> 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.
>

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.

In any event, no meeting time needed for this document.
>

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


> - 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.
>

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.


> - 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.
>

Sounds about right.

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


> - 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.


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
> document.
>

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

>
> --
> 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