Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-07.txt
"Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Mon, 05 May 2008 12:09 UTC
Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790B43A6D1E; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEAB28C12D for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YBa8jo0oCydj for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED3B3A6AC2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2008 05:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m45C9Z4O006610; Mon, 5 May 2008 07:09:35 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 May 2008 07:09:35 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 07:09:32 -0500
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF02FC68DD@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <909D5324-06ED-489D-8EC8-8EC6788C8C95@nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-07.txt
Thread-Index: AciuqCS8xNn2HlpbSAK7yi6d9+PkqgAAHKJg
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF02BCA53D@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <909D5324-06ED-489D-8EC8-8EC6788C8C95@nokia.com>
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2008 12:09:35.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[E25F6320:01C8AEA8]
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Tom Talpey <thomas.talpey@netapp.com>, Brent Callaghan <brentc@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-07.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Lars, Russ Housely pinged me about this earlier and provided me with a pointer to the -08 version. At that time, I indicated to Russ that I felt the changes (between -07 and -08) addressed my comments. I probably should have responded to the entire list at that point, but did not... Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:03 AM > To: Eric Gray > Cc: Tom Talpey; Brent Callaghan; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-07.txt > Importance: High > > Hi, authors, > > while you're getting ready to engage with Lisa on her > DISCUSS, please > also review the gen-art review below and send me an RFC Editor Note > with any changes you'd like to make. > > Lars > > On 2008-3-27, at 13:20, ext Eric Gray wrote: > > > Author(s), > > > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-07.txt > > > > Reviewer: Eric Gray > > Review Date: 03/17/2008 > > > > Summary: > > > > This document is nearly ready to publish as a Proposed Standard > > RFC. > > > > COMMENTS/QUESTIONS > > ================== > > > > In the first paragraph of section 3, there is some text about > > the fact that the RDMA header is analogous to record marking, > > as used for RPC over TCP, but is more extensive, because "RDMA > > transports support several modes of data transfer" and we want > > to allow the client and server to use efficient transfer modes. > > > > Is the transfer mode negotiable between the client and server, > > or are more efficient modes simply well enough defined that > > either could make this decision on its own? > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > In the last paragraph before section 3.1, you include this > > (paraphrased) text: > > > > "An upper layer may [...] define an exchange to dynamically > > enable RPC/RDMA on an existing RPC association. Any such > > exchange must be carefully architected so as to prevent any > > ambiguity as to the framing in use for each side of the > > connection." > > > > This does not look like the sort of statement we should be > > making in a proposed standard. The entire (paraphrased) > > quote above - especially the phrase "must be carefully > > architected" - is at least a little too vague. Does this > > specification (or another) provide support for this as an > > option? Are there pre-conditions and signaling needs at > > the higher layer? Or, is it enough simply to say that the > > same approach must be consistently used within any single > > message? > > > > It sounds like this is something that needs to be defined at > > a specific level (such as at the application level) and that > > entities at that level need to ensure that specific things > > are correctly handled. In this case, I'm being vague because > > I don't know the protocols involved well enough to be more > > specific about what "specific things" and "correctly handled" > > mean - but I strongly suspect that "carefully architected" > > doesn't cover it. > > > > My suggestion is to remove (or rephrase) the last 3 sentences > > in that paragraph, including the two paraphrased above and the > > one that follows them. > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art