RE: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard

"Black, David" <> Sun, 10 July 2016 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C6512D0C5; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.608
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dax1op1SbONB; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D603712B060; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u6AIq1qF024914 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:52:02 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 u6AIq1qF024914
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=jan2013; t=1468176722; bh=COhfX5uUf9Y3aFKw5OZArqFe6ec=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=aQepmZUp0d0kLtuZIC9BRbBTLdIMHdJUCk7YrnwUvkrkGwuajdh+pzGobahF4O6Ap G2k8Pfm6lvDAeeUqefPPD+5+6MNrl/z9FHKrWFwsbbWDzI/IKivc9u6sXrkFIJ6DpO ua2QYjQ0QrinTGVMOXI6QkwjQNa58tYu8B7TMcxA=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 u6AIq1qF024914
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:51:05 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u6AIpe4Q022023 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:51:41 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:51:40 -0400
From: "Black, David" <>
To: "" <>
Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHR0U7O9LTzBePR90iDkDdYX4pnXKASDWZQ
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 18:51:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Black, David" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 18:52:06 -0000

This draft generally looks good.  Looking at this from a SCSI standards perspective,
I found a few small things.  The 512 vs. 4k block size (2.3.1) and reservation scope
( items are important - everything else is editorial, although clarity on
commonality with RFC 5663 would be of significant help to any implementer who
has exposure to that.

-- Introduction, last paragraph.

Add a sentence saying that there are no other significant differences from RFC 5663
(previous sentences indicate use of SCSI for fencing and LAYOUTCOMMIT improvements),
e.g., the volume topology (Section 2.3.2) and data structures that describe extents
(Section 2.3.3.) are common with RFC 5663.  Those two examples seem important.

-- Section 2.1, 1st paragraph
	" and the SCSI initiators used for the pNFS Metadata Server and clients MUST
	   support SCSI persistent reservations."
Add a citation of [SPC4] to support that MUST requirement.

-- Section 2.1, 2nd paragraph:

   Clients MUST be able to perform I/O to
   the block extents without affecting additional areas of storage
   (especially important for writes); therefore, extents MUST be aligned
   to 512-byte boundaries.

That assumes a 512 byte logical block size, which is generally ok for now, but 4k is coming.
At a minimum,  "extents MUST be aligned to logical block size boundaries of the logical
units, e.g., 512 bytes."  OTOH, would it be reasonable to just make 4k alignment a MUST
now, as there will be storage systems that need 4k alignment and 4k alignment generally
works better than 512-byte alignment with existing systems?

-- Section 2.3.1

   It is similar to the "Identification
   Descriptor Target Descriptor" specified in [SPC4], but limits the
   allowed values to those that uniquely identify a LU.

I suggest just deleting this sentence, as that is now called an "Identification CSCD Descriptor" - 
if this sentence is retained, the use of those descriptors in EXTENDED COPY would be
important to mention - that seems like a diversion.

   2.  The "DESIGNATOR TYPE" MUST be set to one of four values

T10 is now allowing UUIDs to also be used in the working draft of SPC-5, and those would be
appropriate here.  Nonetheless, I suggest no change until SPC-5 is completed at T10, as this
draft is (properly, IMHO) based on SPC-4.

-- Section

   To make sure all I_T nexuses are registered,
   the client SHOULD set the "All Target Ports" (ALL_TG_PT) bit when
   registering the key, or otherwise ensure the registration is
   performed for each initiator port.

It looks like initiator and target registration scopes were conflated here and
need to be separated.  Suggested text:

   To make sure all I_T nexuses are registered,
   the client SHOULD set the "All Target Ports" (ALL_TG_PT) bit when
   registering the key, or otherwise ensure the registration is
   performed for each target port, and MUST perform registration
   for each initiator port.

-- References

Current version of SAM is SAM-5, consider updating SAM-4 reference to SAM-5.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfsv4 [] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:08 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc:;;;
> Subject: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS
> (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
> The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
> (nfsv4) to consider the following document:
> - 'Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout'
>   <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> mailing lists by 2016-07-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> Abstract
>    The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between
>    the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage
>    device) for a file.  The SCSI Layout Type is defined in this document
>    as an extension to pNFS to allow the use SCSI based block storage
>    devices.
> The file can be obtained via
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list