Spencer Shepler | 29 Jun 22:53 2015
Picon

IETF 93 NFSv4 meeting scheduled for Wednesday July 22...

 

In case you didn’t see the final agenda, our meeting is scheduled for Wednesday morning.

 

Agenda items would be appreciated so that I can get the draft posted.

 

Spencer

 

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
internet-drafts | 1 Jun 19:29 2015
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-00.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Size-Limited Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On Remote Direct Memory Access Transports
        Author          : Charles Lever
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-00.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2015-06-01

Abstract:
   Recent minor versions of NFSv4 work best when ONC RPC transports can
   send ONC RPC transactions in both directions.  This document
   describes conventions that enable RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport
   endpoints to interoperate when operation in both directions is
   necessary.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Ben Campbell | 27 May 23:41 2015

Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ballot and shepherd writeup say "informational", but the document
says "Standards Track." I assume the former is intended.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Kathleen Moriarty | 27 May 21:21 2015
Picon

Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I would expect the security
consideration to discuss the shift to security at the client as well as
to see some text on access controls and access checks, which may just
refer to existing sections.  

The SecDir review had similar comments with some specific suggestions
that do not appear to have been addressed, but please do point me to the
thread if there has been follow up.  Specifically, better organization of
the security considerations is requested and I agree with Joe's
assessment.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05662.html

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Benoit Claise | 27 May 17:05 2015
Picon

Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some nits and editorial comments, as mentioned by Menachem in his OPS-DIR
review:

NITS
====

The tool has found the following: 

 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
     draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-02

Additional NITS
===============

Abstract First Sentence: Repetition of the word "those".

This document provides help in distinguishing between the requirements
for Network File System (NFS) version 4.1's Parallel NFS (pNFS) and those
those specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.

Section 2: Definitions - Not sure whether the word :striped" was intended
here.

Data Server (DS): is one of the pNFS servers which provide the contents
of a file system object which is a regular file. Depending on the layout,
there might be one or more data servers over which the data is striped. 

Section 2: Definitions - Suggest "lay out" rather than "lays out".

Layout Type: describes both the storage protocol used to access the data
and the aggregation scheme used to lays out the file data on the
underlying storage devices. 

Section 3.3: Editorial Requirements - Suggest "separately" rather than
"separably"

"While these could be envisioned as one section in that the fencing
 issue might be the only security issue, it is recommended to deal
 with them separably."

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Stephen Farrell | 27 May 13:47 2015
Picon
Picon

Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I miss a response to the secdir review? [1] I think
Joe's questions are worth answering so I hope you do.

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05662.html

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Mkrtchyan, Tigran | 27 May 10:07 2015
Picon

layout and retrun-on-close

Hi All,

I think this is a similar race condition as was described by Olga for delegation.

Let say we have a client and a server. The client holds a layout with a roc flag
for a file. Now client sends OPEN and CLOSE in parallel. Those two requests can
be processed by server in different order:

server : 

Thread 1: CLOSE, invalidate layout (as there are no other opens on that file)
Thread 2: OPEN

At this point client may assume that layout still valid, but this is not true
any more.

Did I miss something?

Tigran.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Joel Jaeggli | 25 May 17:45 2015

Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: (with COMMENT)

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nit,

4.3.  Object Layout Type

   The Object Layout Type focuses security checks to occur during the
   allocation of the layout.  The client will typically ask for a layout
   for each byte-range of either READ or READ/WRITE

I don't think focuses is right word in this context... forces?

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Chuck Lever | 20 May 23:05 2015
Picon

new revisions of fedfs individual drafts

Hi-

I’ve posted revised versions of the following individual I-Ds:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-federated-fs-security-addendum/

and

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-federated-fs-nce/

The main change is to replace references to the pending draft
FedFS documents with equivalent newly minted RFCs.

I’d like to get more review of these two I-Ds so that they can be moved
to Working Group drafts. Any comments or review is welcome.

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Chuck Lever | 20 May 21:19 2015
Picon

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01.txt

Hi-

This draft has been revised. The revisions include:

 - A discussion on avoiding XID collision in the forward
   and backward direction has been added

 - The “Payload Size” subsection has been rewritten for clarity

 - Review comments since -00 have been addressed (thanks!)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01.txt
> Date: May 20, 2015 at 3:09:57 PM EDT
> To: "Charles Lever" <chuck.lever <at> oracle.com>, "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever <at> oracle.com>
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Charles Lever and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection
> Revision:	01
> Title:		Size-Limited Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On Remote Direct Memory Access Transports
> Document date:	2015-05-20
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		14
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01
> 
> Abstract:
>   Recent minor versions of NFSv4 work best when ONC RPC transports can
>   send ONC RPC transactions in both directions.  This document
>   describes conventions that enable RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport
>   endpoints to interoperate when operation in both directions is
>   necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

internet-drafts | 28 Apr 19:19 2015
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-38.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : NFSv4 Minor Version 2 Protocol External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
        Author          : Thomas Haynes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-38.txt
	Pages           : 81
	Date            : 2015-04-28

Abstract:
   This Internet-Draft provides the XDR description for NFSv4 minor
   version two.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-38

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-38

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4


Gmane