[nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009
James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 21:29 UTC
Return-Path: <jlentini@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D583A692B for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.230, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, 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 Vqkzev6XjOpc for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DBE3A68C4 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:47 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,377,1257148800"; d="scan'208";a="286514300"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2009 13:29:35 -0800
Received: from jlentini-linux.hq.netapp.com (jlentini-linux.hq.netapp.com [10.97.16.21]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id nBALTYCY016255 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:29:34 -0500
From: James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com>
X-X-Sender: jlentini@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912101628360.18058@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:29:48 -0000
FedFS Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 --------------------------------- Attendees --------- Andy Adamson (NetApp) Sorin Faibish (EMC) Paul LeMahieu (EMC) James Lentini (NetApp) Pavan Mettu (Sun) Trond Myklebust (NetApp) Chris Stacey (EMC) Robert Thurlow (Sun) Renu Tewari (IBM) Minutes ------- + IETF Note Well Agreement This is a reminder that our discussions are governed by the IETF Note Well Agreement. See: http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html We will start each week's meeting with this announcement. + Review Action Items - James Lentini will investigate if an LDAP client can automatically determine the security properties of an LDAP directory. Open. James did some initial research but has not found anything yet. + Mailing List Questions - FSL Resolution The mailing list thread is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07593.html The question raised in this discussion is how a fileserver generates a referral based on the results of resolving a junction. The example in Section 3.2 of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-reqts-06 states: 5. The server converts one of the FSLs to the location type used by the client (e.g., fs_location for NFSv4, as described in [RFC3530]). An FSN may map to multiple FSLs, but the example indicates that a single FSL is returned to the client. While this is just an example and not a requirement, it nevertheless confusing. James proposed changing "one of the FSLs" to "one or more of the FSLs" to clarify the example. No objections were raised to this change. Chris stated that he was in favor of leaving the process of generating a referral an implementation decision. James agreed and suggested that it would be conceivable that a fileserver would filter the FSLs for any number of reasons. Trond suggested that one case where a fileserver might wish to filter the FSLs would be when fileserver knew some of the FSLs were inaccessible to the client. For example an FSL might be behind firewall that prevents the client's access. Chris offered another potential use case: a fileserver may wish to do load balancing. Rob pointed out that allowing a fileserver to perform some type of data reduction on the FSL results was also required. FedFS FSLs store the full NFSv4.1 fs_locations_info data. Some fileservers will be reducing FSLs to the more limited NFSv4.0 fs_locations data. Therefore, the fileserver need to think about what to present to clients. The fileserver might want to simplify the list, although Rob didn't see a big problem with returning the full list. Trond noted that, in this particular case, the v4.0 client will only choose one of these entries. James asked about read only FSLs. FedFS FSLs have a writeable flag which can be communicated in an fs_locations_info attribute, but not an fs_locations attribute. Would it make sense for the a fileserver to cull out the readonly FSLs for a v4.0 client? Trond felt that this might be a more practical example. He also noted that for replicated filesets, the fs_locations_info allows the client to learn now how often the fileset is updated. There is no way to communicate this information in an fs_locations attribute. To direct a v4.0 client to the most up-to-date instance of a fileset, the entries for a fileset could be arranged in the fs_locations list in order of most to least up-to-date (the best option would be first in the list). Chris stated that the current approach for allowing fileservers to generate referrals was useful. Trond proposed that recommendations on how a fileserver generate a referral from FSL information be included in one of the drafts and that the door be left open for fileserver filtering of the FSL information. James proposed adding the recommendations to the NSDB draft and making the minor working change above to the requirements draft. [AI] James Lentini draft clarification for step 5 of the example in Section 3.2 of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-reqts-06. [AI] James Lentini draft recommendations for how to generate a referral based on FSL information. - Root Fileset The mailing list thread is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07594.html Chris reviewed the current options for implementing the root of a namespace. The root may be either a normal filesystem or root fileset NSDB object. Chris is uneasy about allowing both options. The filesystem option implies to Chris that only homogeneous fileservers could be used for root servers because it implies some amount of replication between the root servers. Heterogeneous fileset replications seems a long way off. Rob suggested that heterogeneous replication might not be as difficult with new facilities in v4. For example, volatile filehandles mean that filehandles do not need to be replicated. That said, Rob sees the future work of this group is on a draft describing how root fileset data is stored in the NSDB. In some ways we are moving the replication problem from the fileservers to the NSDBs. The LDAP replication story is not great, but there are options and will allow the namespace root to be hosted on fileservers from multiple vendors. Chris noted that if option to use a real filesystem is present, then all the functionality that implies is possible. If the namespace root is a real filesystem, the namespace root can contain real files, all the richness of security options, etc. This will make moving to an NSDB-base FSL difficult. We do expect an NSDB-based root fileset to be more restrictive. Renu suggested that it was time to start up the discussions on the root fileset again. Chris asked how allow both a filesystem or root fileset as the namespace root. Andy suggested describing the expectations and restrictions. Chris noted that even the names of directories become sensitive. For example, the fact that a directory exists with a project name should not be visible to everyone. Rob asked if these types of security concerns were our problem. He suggested that we are in the connectivity business. There are ways to arrange the namespace to protect information, for example by placing sensitive project names as subdirectories in a normal fileset. Rob suggested that when the root fileset draft was ready, the other drafts be updated to point to it as a SHOULD. Rob would like the expectation and norm be that the root fileset is defined in the LDAP NSDB. Building a root fileset by hand would be possible, but not desirable. Andy suggested that rules are necessary and important when organizations are joined together and combine their namespaces. Chris believes that there are parallels between an NSDB root fileset and a DFS root fileset. James noted that he was concern about placing dependencies to an unwritten draft on the existing documents. The plan proposed in April'09 was to move forward with the core FedFS specifications and allow the root fileset definition to proceed at its own pace. Chris said that this sounds good. He would like to capture our tentative conclusions from today. + Admin NSDB Trust Anchor Management We reviewed our discussion from last week and the following mailing list discussion. Trond noted that we need more detail on the proposals. James agreed. We discussed several potential security options. It seems like there are three options emerging: NULL, TLS, and SASL+Kerberos 5. It is unclear how useful SASL+Kerberos 5 would be. Trond asked if we could define a set of security options and allow for future extensions. He suggested that a possibility would be to include an opaque field with a format determined by the security parameter, similar to RPC. James agreed that this was a good idea and said he had been thinking along these same lines. Trond suggested that, if the ADs were comfortable with this approach, it would be reasonable to define one or two security mechanisms now and defer the defining other options until there was a need. [AI] James Lentini draft text for Admin draft with security mechanisms. James noted that we are falling a bit behind our schedule. We had hoped to have the documents finalized before the end of the calendar year. Given that reviewing the changes above will take some amount of time, the earliest documents would be finalized is January'10.
- [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 James Lentini
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 James Lentini
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 stacey_chris
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 James Lentini
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 12/10/2009 Nicolas Williams