[nfsv4] Re: Changes in the rfc5661bis effort

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2024 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 EC173C1519BB; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6NjMEtJ4Ovf4; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEDB7C1519AB; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b064c4857dso3002766d6.2; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717791104; x=1718395904; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8P71JBhaKeQwBE327J788X1MlG4talODuLCxPqCQl14=; b=Mo7X2TwojmCvOJ5sB0NoxQcoEDV3JMw9xL5RoZDHryPeGH07aDj0AaQy+0Vm4lLwOS DSv0AAXIaA7iRA/Hd0hQIJXAFBVeDmTGFxTkmcmMA+T1AAYeHv+s4Nyep1uTaySmg/+0 9rGm742/d3wHrL8llHSuhsqC4epVTLNRZxrfpjcWh6kkifCHfl7Lt2J7BIg1G5XPascR hqyiR8MrUYmnoCwGkXtBIlpPsJc/oH5MAzeAcQStspTc8a6PxRwLh/ImVSHBU2QS1alK sUhwrMnhrGJZekqWSgOMidCjusIs4+mWZ8yDJu8c0CQmY8+5eJYzxFNj+wYZ7AsHNtye DOiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717791104; x=1718395904; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=8P71JBhaKeQwBE327J788X1MlG4talODuLCxPqCQl14=; b=h1lBruzziOq7wyP5ICOvbyxiI0XSAIlPuTjcZZ4LClD+yKDZCrSe2f6hVoZ/2xaLdE XFWvdD1iWZoSTPzKlSmyughvWX+lholb0f/fk2zJMh/N3nEi4j0azZLjgNJkQZrRAFXo AUXWTTzMJbX8zal7B4AgaulTP0UI3QzOagGn1h1PZH9B6WfXkYBGM9w4QiWPOXOSBVnW qlwwb/EdZcD4MiJZj1OQa/jPzcnufrfe83w7oU7toTzmk72+Km/kgs08LUzAoLqN0TEw EvHl4ve12wzABzlulBVdQ/fJszhcABNMUUVumZ5/SDzFfAeCOo52qiDWK3iH9LZs5yRe rX1g==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX9SbFpacHB/d7u8OJoY+dt/64ZiVKdyYxbq9X/UtVs4bo7GHcnQykS+q2UIoGJES1B9yR1IhCGWzbhstRFdi2MUeOlkk0=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy6ieV8iWAQ7m6ZcAo8NJn6+lUjAIn9t1+UKOSAzZN9fxEC0Yhx VUrK2VDC5ewx6ufuJh7EmrM4K8dGTCB5h4bcch6nzNWSYreKxVzxqVKqvLfL1XVOb4yZkT5ZEMM /W7jka6YV28R98DSuQygL3pqw8OM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE5AeeHA+TSlRcVJstWCOrrm+38wMTemMpOvVyCRjG0mE1dfz0yj0ZpqHI8V7fvZz7beJ1/de84gBhipAyOxp0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2f12:b0:6af:c111:63b1 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b059b6c8e2mr43747226d6.9.1717791103616; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADaq8jd4MX3Re8dkyTE0JCBqT3yjyP5SjaP0pFqBqnZ-=QgDxg@mail.gmail.com> <D7DBCD68-E784-4C62-AE08-21E587EB4590@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D7DBCD68-E784-4C62-AE08-21E587EB4590@gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 16:11:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdYqqTjVxRFWeuPb7d7rZKWDo+EvO4+JDFaz+uvFZMtgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000878d68061a526858"
Message-ID-Hash: WLTW6NIGTHWCC7ZDWWMMFZETVPKTXOFC
X-Message-ID-Hash: WLTW6NIGTHWCC7ZDWWMMFZETVPKTXOFC
X-MailFrom: davenoveck@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-nfsv4.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, nfsv4-chairs <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [nfsv4] Re: Changes in the rfc5661bis effort
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/2MvI0N6t8gs6Z_XwUMi3gEGLh6Q>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nfsv4-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-leave@ietf.org>

On Sun, May 19, 2024, 5:59 PM Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you are adding new OPTIONAL attributes/operations for NFSv4.1, please
> make sure that they do not conflict with definitions for NFSv4.2.
>

That makes sense.

>
> I.e., do not assign FATTR4_NEW_ATTRIBUTE to be 77, instead first assign it
> in the NFSv4.2 block range and then use that same number on NFSv4.1.
>

I don't see how we could make the definition of 4.1 depend on 4.2.   I just
need to find an unsigned value and then ask those proposing 4.2 attributes
not to conflict with that.

>
>
> On May 19, 2024, at 7:10 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want people to be aware of some important changes in the rfc5661bis
> effort.  I will discuss these in more detail at the 4.21 interim meeting.
>  However,, I'm sending this out now because:
>
>    - People who won't attend that meeting should know about this as well.
>    - It would be helpful if people who will attend read the
>    attachment beforehand.
>
> I recently discovered Section 9 of RFC8178.  It appears that we have the
> option, in fixing protocol detects, of extending the protocol just as we do
> in extendible minor versions.  Of course, we should not use that option too
> freely.  The attachment summarizes the defects we have to deal with,
> including the two cases (out of ten defects) where protocol extension is
> likely to be needed.  We need to make sure we have a consensus about these.
>
> Some good news to savor:
>
>    - The drafting for most of these (eight out of ten) is done or will be
>    done when rfc5661bis-05 is out in a about a week.
>    - The option of creating a new *OPTIONAL *attribute for ACL feature
>    would let us close out the acl work and complete the bis effort much
>    earlier than we had been expecting.   It  requires we decide to limit our
>    interoperability-enablement efforts in the v4.1 context to the UNIX ACLs
>    subset or something close to it.  I am looking to make that scope decision
>    at IETF120.
>
> I'd like people to help by reviewing the existing documents and new ones
> as they come out.  I'm aware of the facts that the total size is on the
> order of *War and Peace* and that I don't write as well as Tolstoy.  In
> order to limit your reading, you can focus on:
>
>    - The defects listed in the attachment.
>    - The items discussed in Appendix C of *draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661bis* (-04
>    now and -05 later)
>    - The consensus items list in various Appendices in *d*
>    *raft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security *and *draft-dnoveck-dnoveck-acls*
>
> BTW, diffs with RFC881 are not helpful.  but inter-version diffs of the
> same document are often quite helpful.
> <61bis-May19-S1dot3.txt>_______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list -- nfsv4@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to nfsv4-leave@ietf.org
>
>
>