[nfsv4] Finishing up on rfc5661 erratta

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 12 April 2024 14:19 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 28D92C14F5FB for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 N8teAyR37y3E for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:19:50 -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 97EB2C14E515 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-69b16b614d7so5520536d6.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712931589; x=1713536389; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AUOVVRFApenPjc+Nm5Q2whujXCO025RSHiGQM7U9HNQ=; b=LkGGMaUw3qjyafkX2cB03Y7eeaIrgG/Ek9vhC2pkqJ3YsMWOWqQSgxOsdbIlJFt7fb FVsAz+9Rprgsint8iXrH7JTikJkgB4NcE91pcbt0wBppPqoWWJ/SAaqtf5/9oBQA7k6g 7NugIjFUeTuNsXECrsAfty4U/sa7w7UCbWr0i6nOrCfZuul04zEms79/DBPJsk5a9B7o rLsmdK2aF1Dvn7fxWnPRtpdBuqf7USFVdxXBLA5lGBEN86VTT1/zMeeulQIPxTZZGQvW WY+GkjkNFkFHHQTYA+6+xcy27MXKMiYp/genNV1Q1+jcL/EtggGs/hu1etGFxr7yzPXR VOHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712931589; x=1713536389; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AUOVVRFApenPjc+Nm5Q2whujXCO025RSHiGQM7U9HNQ=; b=J0wl/Z8jE3R9JQd69eXETA3piPbR2ATJJ+kHpTRzp9E5nx2t1t4QUtMiND3yf6g/de gDs98HGZOD27oGuYeSdCGYYUmSBdNZ1F+3ef720WidnVudv2Jtym7uJ3oIszj9Rohej7 hnrFejNQzxwdR0mnIEiIgTRPUYUA7KBqrHTOrFFaeGkEUYktzdO2kUCkv0eWE/Vxzqhk DK/0evrMAhO7Gpa/U535QON62hvJzmyfchDze425kDNcMkpWIicSv8qHRN8s8FqNRhsA YX2FSzOQPyXmXhP7WD2jGTM6trC+WrpuDnv/Y529qo0djtPK+Mn0bGid4cs3mD0UU6wx CkTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw7+ts9RSM467VFxFa3ZMIO/aFE/ylk4YcSEexpu9EnJyFxWhvM GJ6dXyt1dYSC3+09g1AHA9u08S10dFFtF4gtpxbnb2m8gu7Hw7mYGRScv+MzPwWsaT/X1uxYshe GTCXHGzrrig1HvEvbC5R61JYjvs0oDgmZ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHk00LjDWmezHHqnLMMNe6vDbh4GPLJTj7tpOackNGx3s8QbkuwK9aC4+mu3sIEwkGhVDsaxIAInkbCZU8JDFg=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:420a:0:b0:69b:45bb:2124 with SMTP id k10-20020ad4420a000000b0069b45bb2124mr2833780qvp.47.1712931589239; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:19:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jeUbWGVPsC1UqoqZ4eLwavDx54t3Ndo+k=S12N8KDLykw@mail.gmail.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6bcee0615e6f6ef"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/95JjMAkHxZzk1bBrRBRg56qDklg>
Subject: [nfsv4] Finishing up on rfc5661 erratta
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:19:51 -0000

A lot of progress has been made on these errata and there are only three
left to deal with, which I intend to deal with before submitting
rfc5661bis-04 in the next few weeks.  I'd like to determine if anyone in
the group has any issues with regard to how these are being addressed.
Although we could deal with issues as part of the ongoing review process
for this document, I would prefer if we get issues resolved before drafting
replacement text in WG document rather than drafting something problematic
in -04 and fixing it later.  This is particularly the case for errata
formally in the state *REJECTED, *for which we need to be clear that there
is a consensus for changing what is now in the existing  *Proposed
Standard.* In any case, we still need to address the following errata
reports:

   - Errata report 2751 concerns COMMIT and LAYOUTCOMMIT and was submitted
   by Ricardo Labiaga and currently has the status *REJECTED.*

In spite of this status, I intend to incorporate the suggested text, with a
set of changes discussed below into rfc5661bis-04.  It is my impression
that this text reflects actual implementations and that the text without
these changes is no longer appropriate.   Because of the rejection, we need
a working group consensus to make this change but I intend to incorporate
without waiting for any formal declaration of such a consensus.  That need
for consensus will be dealt with as part of getting ready for WGLC on
rfc5661bis.  Nevertheless, if anyone objects to this change or has
suggestions for its improvement, I'd like to hear about it as soon as
possible.
I am not, as suggested in this report, creating a new subsection within the
pnfs top-level section (Section 12 in rfc5661) but I will be adding that
material to a new subsection within the pnfs files top-level section
(Section 13 in rf5661)


   - Errata report 3067 concerns loca_offset and loca_length in
   LAYOUTCOMMIT and was submitted by David Black and currently has status
   *DEFER.*

My impression is that these fields are no longer used by existing clients
and servers and are currently treated as suggested by David's replacement
text.  Please let me know if that is not the case.
My only current issue with David's text is about the phrase "has been
deprecated" which doesn't really have a clear meaning in the IETF
standards-track context.  Furthermore, it is unclear exactly when in the
past this supposed deprecation happened or how an actual deprecation (e.g.,
"the inclusion of these useless fields was a clueless error")  might
conflict with the NOTE-WELL   I intend to avoid passing judgment on the
past by simply saying "The fields loca_offset and loca_length,
although defined in the XDR description of the NFSv4.1 protocol, have no
use within the protocol.


   - Errata report 4118 concerns  NOTIFY_DEVICEID4_CHANGE and was submitted
   by Christoph Helwig and currently has status *DEFER.*

I don't see any issues with putting this into -04.  If anyone does, please
let me know.
My only current issue with Chritoph's text concerns the use of
*"SHOULD" *regarding
the non-use ndc_immediate since I don't see any actual harm looking at it
and can't see any valid reasons to ignore this recommendation, if that is
what it is.   I've asked Christoph for his opinion but haven't heard back.
In any case, people should let me know if there is something that they
want to see or not see here.   My current preference is to adopt a "just
the facts" approach and say "This data type contains a boolean field,
ndc_immediate, which has no use within the protocol."