Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Tue, 29 August 2017 23:34 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AD7132A94 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=cJfrowqL; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=biUGCb0V
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 QAdaSP9fL0Dh for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.153.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF354132A9B for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1504049558; x=1535585558; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FTjlwGHRreJ6uUdQEXwWnZob3dRGf5pMRXnQhLE7kMg=; b=cJfrowqLsRILduStR/LFjtyaYgPC6R2IWu4Z6Oawb9zvnwkI8SbV8QS7 pwO6KFEzYMNgvwvNad+8oQyajvrlzE84mKnn0xsQDM8e+X8WArYlswXtw hya+/HUpJTTTZjNU7h8xgZGvImqSBUIE3DIxCTe14jWTKrDq6curWExdp Q=;
Received: from esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.201]) by esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Aug 2017 18:32:29 -0500
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com ([128.221.224.79]) by esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2017 05:32:26 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.157]) by mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v7TNXmEo018672 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:33:48 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com v7TNXmEo018672
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1504049629; bh=PLefYtwOgCjQurrfP109U0GDCO0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=biUGCb0VYWZrbZxneOb1qGNN5ptm1esauCzStI2PBmggEH3ab6wfCyj7aYI1BdjYn AQTCvyLe/HPo8hydmYzb5JFdE3u+fk9cjQ7PVca/ZCU79W7PCtZONIO+0W2nb+XLQ2 fbYV7XSBnKVDq71IjlVkPcyDbJ3OKW5hQzv0chOM=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com v7TNXmEo018672
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:32:27 -0400
Received: from MXHUB305.corp.emc.com (MXHUB305.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.31]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v7TNXRqn030361 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:33:27 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB305.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.31]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:33:26 -0400
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
CC: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTIQoN3kSxKg3AvUiv46S2y9a/2qKb1OAAgABXbAD//8v3kA==
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:33:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC27434@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <150404051071.32268.12603067292136611968@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC270CD@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <E7A90550-6855-4597-9759-E1895C6FBE1A@primarydata.com>
In-Reply-To: <E7A90550-6855-4597-9759-E1895C6FBE1A@primarydata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.126]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/1LHugPPHbIfJyO_mJHo_xMLgCHk>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:34:05 -0000
Hi Tom, Following up on this one item, as everything else in your email is fine with me: > > -- Section 3.1 item (2) > > > > It might be helpful to add a sentence or two to state that these layout > revocation requirements do not apply to layout recall, where the client's > cooperative participation is expected (with layout revocation available as a > fallback if the client does not cooperate). > > > Currently: > > The metadata > server typically would revoke a layout whenever a client fails > to respond to a recall or a client's lease is expired due to > non-renewal. > > Is it too subtle? > > And remember we did define both revoking and recalling a layout in Section > 2. Yup - I wrote too much in my comment - "requirements do not apply to layout recall" is the only thing that's not obvious. I'd suggest adding one more sentence as a separate paragraph at the end of item (2): In contrast, there is no requirement to restrict access to a file on the storage devices when a layout is recalled. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Haynes [mailto:loghyr@primarydata.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 6:25 PM > To: Black, David <david.black@emc.com> > Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt > > Hi David, > > Thanks for the review - only one contention and one major change in my > replies. > > > On Aug 29, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote: > > > > Reading this late in the process, I noticed a few small things: > > > > -- Section 2. Definitions > > > > control protocol: is the particular mechanism that an implementation > > of a layout type would use to meet the control communication > > requirement for that layout type. This need not be a protocol as > > normally understood. In some cases the same protocol may be used > > as a control protocol and data access protocol. > > > > "data access protocol" -> "storage protocol" as that's the term used > elsewhere in this document. > > I *thought* I eradicated all of those? > > Ah, I got rid of data storage protocol. > > Ack > > > > > > > -- Section 3.1 item (2) > > > > It might be helpful to add a sentence or two to state that these layout > revocation requirements do not apply to layout recall, where the client's > cooperative participation is expected (with layout revocation available as a > fallback if the client does not cooperate). > > > Currently: > > The metadata > server typically would revoke a layout whenever a client fails > to respond to a recall or a client's lease is expired due to > non-renewal. > > Is it too subtle? > > And remember we did define both revoking and recalling a layout in Section > 2. > > > > > > -- Section 3.1 item (4). > > > > (4) Interactions between locking and I/O operations MUST obey > > existing semantic restrictions. In particular, if an I/O > > operation would be invalid when directed at the metadata server, > > it is not to be allowed when performed on the storage device. > > > > This is easy to misread as placing responsibility for not allowing the I/O > operation on the storage device. > > I agree with your analysis. > > > > In some layouts, the client is responsible for enforcing that. Suggested > rephrasing of the last line: > > > > then the I/O operation MUST also be invalid between the > > client and storage device. Client rejection of the invalid I/O > > operation is a valid means of enforcing this requirements. > > > > Going with the format in the third item, how about this: > > (4) Interactions between locking and I/O operations MUST obey > existing semantic restrictions. In particular, if an I/O > operation would be invalid when directed at the metadata server, > it is not to be allowed when performed on the storage device. > > For the block and SCSI layout, as the storage device is not able > to reject the I/O operation, the client is responsible for > enforcing this requirement. > > > > > > > The rest of this concern is then covered by the last two paragraphs in > Section 3.1 that allow different layouts to place/divide responsibility for > meeting the requirements in different ways. > > > > -- Use of ALL CAPS > > > > This ought to be limited to RFC 2119 keywords, e.g., "REQUIREMENTS" > ought to be lower case "requirements" in the titles of Sections 3.1 and 3.2, > plus one instance in Section 3.2. > > > > This has already flipped once per review. > > Argh, Section 3.3 is not consistent. > > I’m going to go with we haven’t been consistent outside of titles (and > evidently within) and I find it to read better in lowercase. > > Changes made. > > > Also in Section 3.2: > > > > (1) The metadata server MIGHT use fencing operations to the storage > > devices to enforce layout revocation against the client. > > > > MIGHT -> MAY > > > > ack > > > -- End of Section 3.3 > > > > o If the metadata server implements mandatory byte-range locking > > when accessed directly by the client, it must do so when data is > > read or written using the designated storage protocol. > > > > Referent of "it" in the second line is wrong: "it must do so" -> "then the > layout type specification must require that this also be done” > > > > Changed. > > > > > Thanks, --David > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: nfsv4 [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > >> drafts@ietf.org > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 5:02 PM > >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > >> Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org > >> Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.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 WG of the > >> IETF. > >> > >> Title : Requirements for pNFS Layout Types > >> Author : Thomas Haynes > >> Filename : draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt > >> Pages : 16 > >> Date : 2017-08-29 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document defines the requirements which individual pNFS layout > >> types need to meet in order to work within the parallel NFS (pNFS) > >> framework as defined in RFC5661. In so doing, it aims to clearly > >> distinguish between requirements for pNFS as a whole and those > >> specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout. The lack of a clear > >> separation between the two set of requirements has been troublesome > >> for those specifying and evaluating new Layout Types. In this > >> regard, this document effectively updates RFC5661. > >> > >> > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/ > >> > >> There are also htmlized versions available at: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07 > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07 > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07 > >> > >> > >> 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@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nfsv4 mailing list > > nfsv4@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > >
- [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types… internet-drafts
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-t… Black, David
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-t… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-t… Black, David
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-t… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-t… Black, David