18 November 
2002NFSv4 WG 
meeting
Atlanta
The agenda 
was:
    Monday November 18: 19:30pm - 22:00 (2.5 
hours)
    Welcome and Introduction            (Pawlowski)        5 
min    Agenda bash 
etc.        - BLUE 
SHEETS        - NOTE 
WELL        - Status of 
drafts
    Bakeathon results and issues        (Shepler)         10 
min
    Final RFC 3010 resubmission status  (Shepler)         10 
min
    Migration/replication               (Thurlow)         25 
min
    NFS and ROI work                    (Pawlowski)       10 
min
    Review of work items                (Shepler/Pawlowski) 15 
min        - API GSSAPI 
advancement        - MIB draft 
resurrection        - RPC/XDR/RPCSEC_GSS RFC 
plans
    Open discussion                     (Pawlowski)       10 
m
    Wrapup                              (Pawlowski)        5 
m
Brian Pawlowski started with a welcome to the NFSv4 WG intro and went over 
the posted agenda and asked for any additional items; none were 
suggeste
d.
Spencer Shepler presented results of interoperability testing at the 
Bakeathon held in October.  No protocol problems found.  Six 
implementations.  Five implementations had Kerberos 
implemented.
UofM group got base NFS Version 4 kernel including security 
integrated into the Linux 2.5 development 
kernel.
Testing of recovery proceeded - Connectathon tests done during reboots of 
the 
server.
See some interesting presentations on NFS Version 
4:

	http://www.nfsconf.com/pres02/index.html 

Tom Talpey asks why is it not a Bakeoff (go to bakeoff.com to find 
out).
Spencer Shepler then covered the RFC 3010 (NFS Version 4 Protocol 
Specification) resubmission status.  Completed WG Last call, IETF last 
call, IESG approved gave to RFC Editor.  IANA will review in process - they 
did a pre-review.  Next month or so we will here any IANA last requests for 
cl
arifications.
Spencer Shepler then covered replication/migration - standing in for for Rob 
Thurlow.  As V4 core protocol wrapped up people seem to be focusing more on 
the new work.  Interested: Sun, IBM, NetApp, 
UofM.
Replication/migration requirements doc required by December - 
Pawlowski has 
slipped.
Thurlow would like to play with prototype implementations in 
Connectathon in March.  See slides and Thurlow's draft for proposed 
protocol to test.  Bring issues to the WG mail list 
(nfsv4-wg@sunr
oof.eng.sun.com).
Shepler thinks the back-end migration/replication protocol will be much 
simpler than the core V4 
protocol.
Open issues: security, compression/data reduction.  There is interest in low 
bandwidth links.  And - minor version requirements of core protocol in 
support of migration/replication - Dvae Noveck wondered aloud if we would 
have to tweak something in the core 
protocol.
Two other big pieces are management and location of 
replicas.
The location of replicas triggered another possible work item from Dave 
Noveck - that of global name space construction and management.  The same 
facility in V4 as it stands to allow finding file systems that have 
migrated (or are replicated) oculd be part of the solution for 
construction of a "global name space" 
(AFS-lite).
Need a problem statement - this needs to be an internet-draft.  
Describing the global name space stuff and what are the issues it is 
trying to address.  (Would need extension to the charter per the Minor 
Versions item now 
there).
Brian discussed the idea of adding a work item for the NFSv4 WG of 
NFS/RDDP related issues or protocol changes.  This has been touched on at a 
prior IETF meeting and on the alias. This type of work fits well within the 
NFSv4 WG because of its ownership of the RPC and NFSv4 protocols and 
relates well to the RDDP (remote direct data placement) WG efforts.  Brian 
suggests that a subgroup be formed to focus on this area at first 
understanding the requirements.  Need to also understand the SNIA 
NFS/RDMA work and will look to Sun for help in understanding that work and 
how it would transfer or relate to this suggested effort.  Brian 
suggests that this work would fall under minor versioning work and 
therefore is included in the current charter.  However, the AD (Scott 
Bradner) asked that a proposed WG charter change be made as a first 
result of this effort.  Brian owns an action item to formalize the 
overall proposal and discuss via the WG, 
etc.
With the goal of eventually moving the NFSv4 protocol to Draft 
standard, the normative references must also be at Draft standard.  This 
isn't an issue except for the GSSAPI reference because it is an API and not a 
protocol.  Therefore, Brian has a submitted a personal draft that 
describes how an RFC that describes an API would be moved forward the IETF 
standards process.  At this point, Mike Eisler pointed out that GSSAPI 
really does represent a network protocol and not an API (even though there 
are separate RFCs that deal with C and Java language bindings for 
GSSAPI).  Scott Bradner stated that there has been an issue in the past 
within the IESG about moving the GSSAPI RFC forward.  Mike 
volunteered to assist in clarifying the issues so that the GSSAPI 
specification can be moved to Draft status.  It was noted that the NFSv4 
protocol does not rely on the language bindings for 
GSSAPI.
The next topic briefly covered the SNMP MIB resurrection.  Again, a 
sub-group should be formed to resubmit the expired personal draft that 
existed in the past.  Again, Brian owns an action to send email to the WG to 
start this 
work.
The RPC/XDR/Security RFCs that are normative references must be updates for 
appropriate IANA sections.  It was noted that RFC2203 (RPCSEC_GSS 
protocol specification) is dependent on the GSSAPI issue notes above.  This 
will be an additional work 
item.
During the open discussion, there were comments about minor revision 
suggestions.  Dave Noveck mentioned that since file delegation support was 
present in the NFSv4 protocol that it seemed appropriate to consider 
adding support for the delegation of directories.  There seems to be 
interest and use for such a mechanism.  Dave also suggested that it may be 
useful to enable the client to reestablish a delegation after recall and 
that this may also be a reasonable minor version item.  It was also 
suggested that providing this type of functionality may enable the 
ability to support NFSv4 proxy 
caching.
Brian clarified with Scott Bradner if this type of work fell within the 
current NFSv4 WG charter (since it covers minor version work) and Scott 
responded in the 
affirmative.
Dave stated that since the necessary changes for this type of 
delegation should be straightforward that once the requirements are in 
place that it should be simple to test this type of functionality in a 
bakeathon 
environment
As mentioned before, Brian would like to pursue moving the NFSv4 
protocol from Proposed to Draft.  Since this work can be 
significant, Brian wanted to clarify that this was a reasonable thing for 
the WG to pursue. (implementation reports, 
etc.)
Tom Talpey asked if Connectathon 2003 will be used as a benchmark for the 
move of NFSv4 to Draft and the answer was "no".  6 month minimum is 
required to move from Proposed to Draft and since there are still 
interesting features that have yet to be implemented that it will be 
longer than 
that.