IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97127127876; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CL6gi7cRHOZW; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6EF1126BF7; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id o5so62383650ith.1; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gskXHB8Plylia7vweZIvARanglO8dX5tSPPryRy6K0s=; b=qADyrPAKLpdOSJZSSOVb+Gwmf886GXkmrFV429242s/quP14GU3pvNpMyItpEACjVX uhv19CdQN+oUHoisUkfNq5AFZxpYoWZD7mhu1x5p5N3ijZRWsPv8EnjrAj6vREu6+aTe VPzN9LueYbrNvDcCSX97YOY6TK08XLq+kxESJB/GNGub0gCq7oy+SdJgBOh2ozky2F6s squBfSmavqq7wfB6UPABZTYF+t7BnSYW+s+3dk0iwExtUS+35AKbg8OowVJjaaCtI+b2 Q11hMX2JDaXgxy8baW5/XH+uPMZ6H9Jnn4j4qkNerHy4hDCblvLYKPUKlp0EENAKUjjS Htqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gskXHB8Plylia7vweZIvARanglO8dX5tSPPryRy6K0s=; b=XsgmbiQiwkQ1su6op3nagWLd2lvEil0c7Po8h2od+bYvpSluQrR5kUhWBPkB/ESHPk 2jVo47rY8CrNrTnTGpyh9gZ52hcSRLEwcOypnUOGpQpZ9AqyzCBp0eAzaKkYXTCcOgdD tuDRvKlUw+WuIBlZicohxmhs9cCwMxlPsqamaiSvh1zqNnQQq43kGnNpUy9qMKdfS8jE 4qqDWekjXcfDjG/eu4TkrjLfkGBpx7wHkDqfKMiWa5ZE8DGBxXTW70gYT81j5Uk+/5qb ErYaMEjy9+g/m1knzBhWdADGZCUj1rERSLDJh9HZWQ2GO4fiqe5oRac1uWa5Itg+av/B Od9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCmec2PjkGSINXU642bJdoDQTgNNHmbfmwN/6mSp6VJ5RL41F13 /ymmO9r+Fmd77ZW6Qpb9EPjv5OypfQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.11.68 with SMTP id 65mr16094591itd.80.1495740788093; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.4.148 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d64909ad-b71a-a932-606b-8b974cf68140@isi.edu>
References: <149462145126.13443.7366912235626631179@ietfa.amsl.com> <d64909ad-b71a-a932-606b-8b974cf68140@isi.edu>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:33:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdWgRSqGVt0UBf3sqzp3ivYAW36y1JuNg43HGp5WboKrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Cc: Matthew Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning.all@ietf.org, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140c4ee59bfcf05505e4a1f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/1mOgKRU1nexgWTyyDyprV5-ro9Q>
Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 19:33:11 -0000

> This doc gives guidance on creating minor versions, but never addresses
> major versions.

I think we had enough to do addressing minor versions and didn't want to
speculate about a possible v5.  after all, we're the nfsv4 working group
and not the nfsvn working group.


> IMO, past variants of NFS have not handled major version changes
> appropriately. Each one has been assigned a new port number. This is no
> longer recommended practice (see RFC7605, Sec 7.5).


Makes sense.

> Is this issue addressed in another document?

I don't think so.

> AFAICT, if (when) NFSv5 is developed, it seems to appear to need another
> port number.

I don't see why it would.  If there is another Rpc version of the NFS
program,
I don't see why the appropriate negotiation could be defined.  I think
doing\
that would be up to those defining nfsv5.

> If that's the case (and I sincerely hope it isn't), it MUST
> be the last one assigned to this service.

I don't think "MUST" is appropriate in this case but I would say that
assigning
another port would be a DAMN SHAME.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> I'd like to add one point.
>
> This doc gives guidance on creating minor versions, but never addresses
> major versions.
>
> IMO, past variants of NFS have not handled major version changes
> appropriately. Each one has been assigned a new port number. This is no
> longer recommended practice (see RFC7605, Sec 7.5).
>
> Is this issue addressed in another document?
>
> AFAICT, if (when) NFSv5 is developed, it seems to appear to need another
> port number. If that's the case (and I sincerely hope it isn't), it MUST
> be the last one assigned to this service.
>
> Joe
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email