👍🏻 On Jul 9, 2020, at 00:02, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:05:33PM -0400, David Noveck wrote: >> There is an obvious matter of principle > > It is it not clear to me what principle you are referring to. Probably https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/interim I am surprised the tooling lets you create an interrim meeting without the standard 4 week headway. The obvious workaround for expedience is that any group of people can always have an informal, not IETF "blessed" meeting. Given how actual WG decisions have to be made on the mailing list anyhow, the only difference between any such informal and official (virtual/side) meeting are IMHO really only the processes. For better or worse. IMHO, inoffical side meetings are the best way to solve expediency issues. Just make sure that even more diligence is taken in recording what happened during such a meeting via notes and spend more time presenting summary at the next official meeting and allowing a discussion about it then.. Cheers Toerless > because > > > people who are >> interested in the WG's work but might not have been actively >> participating on its mailing list > > > I accept that there are interested people who are not actively > participating. > > However, I'm having trouble understanding how someone interested in the > work of the working group can totally avoid reading the working group list.. > Color me skeptical. > > > (assuming there more notice on >> that list) > > > It has. > > might not be able to arrange attendance with that >> sort of notice. > > > If there are such people, I want to offer them my apologies. > > Equally important, there has been an extended >> discussion of some of the directions of NFS on another list that >> might reasonably justify a summary or discussion on the agenda >> but presumably cannot be proposed given this short notice. >> > > I'm unaware of any such discussion. The appropriate way to make the > working group aware of it would be to send mail to the working group list. > This still should.be done. > While you might want a slot on the agenda, it might not be available, even > if you had been reading the working group list when this meeting was first > discussed. > > If it should have been announced earlier but slipped through >> that cracks that is regrettable but should still not, at least >> IMO, be justification for going ahead with a meeting on such >> short notice. > > > My opinion is different. I cannot see delaying at this point and > inconveniencing the working group members, who have been preparing for this > meeting for some time. This is especially so since our AD's vacation > schedule is such that the next opportunity to meet would be in September. > > > >> thanks, >> john >> >> >> >> --On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 14:26 -0700 IESG Secretary >> <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4) WG will hold >>> a virtual interim meeting on 2020-07-09 from 09:00 to 11:00 >>> America/Los_Angeles (16:00 to 18:00 UTC). >>> >>> Agenda: >>> >>> Who Time MS Doc Description >>> D. Noveck 5 min. N/A Introduction including NOTE WELL. >>> D. Noveck 5 min. N/A Agenda bashing. >>> S. Faibish 20 min. Yes. ? Discussion of progress and plans for >>> standards-track document describing use of NVMe in connection >>> with pNFS. D. Noveck 5 min. N/A Discussion of overall process >>> for rfc5661bis. 5 min 2/2021 I-D Discussion of revised >>> internationalization document (for all minor versions) to be >>> referenced by rfc5661bis. 20 min. WBD >>> I-D Discussion of needed changes for new NFSv4 security >>> approach. 5 min. WBD No. Discussion of plans and status for a >>> revised NFSv4.1 specification. 5 min N/A Summary of current >>> decisions and actions necessary to move forward. C. Lever 15 >>> min. 12/2020 Yes. Discussion of status and possible remaining >>> issues for RPC-over-RDMA v2. S. Faibish 15 min. TBD I-D >>> Discussion of proposed storage compression attributes and >>> associated implementation plans. D. Noveck 10 min. N/A >>> Discussion of issues with client caching of directories >>> concerning how the directory entry cookies and ordering are >>> to be managed, both in the same-client and other-client cases. >>> D. Noveck 5 min. N/A Review of document and milestone status. >>> >>> Information about remote participation: >>> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mef56921edfe5a931dedf78 >>> 51b1507ebf >>> >>> This is supposed to be scheduled for July 9 (tomorrow) - >>> sorry, something went wrong. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nfsv4 mailing list >> nfsv4@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >> -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
