Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9561 <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-nvme-07> for your review

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

David> inline ...

Thanks, --David

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:28 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black, David <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9561 <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-nvme-07> for your review


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as shown below.  Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC
7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.

Original:
Using the Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout to access NVMe storage devices

Current:
Using the Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout to Access Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) Storage Devices
-->
David> That change is fine.

2) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether this note should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a  container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" 
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary*aside__;Iw!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_d7nXRkG$ [authors[.]ietf[.]org]).

Original: 
   Note: The PS_DESIGNATOR_T10 and PS_DESIGNATOR_NAME have no equivalent
   in NVMe and cannot be used to identify NVMe storage devices.
-->
David> That sounds reasonable, I will want to check what rendered result looks like before approving.

3) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the following is correct.  We are unable to find "variable length" in RFC 8154. 

Original:
   RFC 8154 [RFC8154] specifies the "sbv_designator" field as an XDR
   variable length opaque<>.
-->
David> That is correct, as that concept is defined in section 10 of RFC 4506: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4506.html#section-4.10 .  RFC 4506 defines XDR, and it appears that RFC4506 should be cited at the end of that sentence and added as a normative reference.  Good catch by the RFC Editor!

4) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "direct block" or "block" in Sections 2.4.6 or 4 of RFC 8154.  However, we do see the "direct block" in Section 2.4.5; "block" appears in many sections.  Please review the text and let us know if any updates are needed. 

Original: 
   Refer to Sections 2.4.6 (Extents Are
   Permissions) and 4 (Security Considerations) of [RFC8154] for the
   Security Considerations of direct block access from NFS clients.
-->
David> The text is correct as written, although changing "direct block access" to "direct access to block storage" might be clearer, e.g., as "block storage" occurs in the Abstract of RFC 8154.

5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_cWwQfTp$ [rfc-editor[.]org]> and let us know if any changes are needed.  Note that our script did not flag any words in  particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->

David> I didn't spot anything that needs attention in this regard.

Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Mar 6, 2024, at 5:25 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/06

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_dp15MkI$ [rfc-editor[.]org]).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_bkQQkX0$ [trustee[.]ietf[.]org]).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_RqizZxL$ [authors[.]ietf[.]org]>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_eqPYlAL$ [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org]
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_SjkD6aw$ [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org]

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files
-----

The files are available here:
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.xml__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_RPsSFPe$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.html__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_RHGfSEn$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.pdf__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_VADl59f$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.txt__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_Zg-tyMM$ [rfc-editor[.]org]

Diff file of the text:
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561-diff.html__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_WQmgFi-$ [rfc-editor[.]org]
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561-rfcdiff.html__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_RV78vOr$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561-xmldiff1.html__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_YYruP4H$ [rfc-editor[.]org]

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.original.v2v3.xml__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_ZwYfNyT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only: 
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9561.form.xml__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_a_M8N3i$ [rfc-editor[.]org]


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9561__;!!LpKI!kr6maf_mxgAssx4GcU0PLBwkb3VfdlOsJDm5ZUnVk0S-8-um4NYFjr2CwijRuVVSHoU5DVEO2ppeID64_dTDLqFz$ [rfc-editor[.]org]

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9561 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-nvme-07)

Title            : Using the Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout to access NVMe storage devices
Author(s)        : C. Hellwig, C. Lever, S. Faibish, D. Black
WG Chair(s)      : Brian Pawlowski, Christopher Inacio

Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker