Re: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-08

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@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 C207912D963; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJiIEaICdLvD; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE5912D961; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c78so2619078ywb.13; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:59:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kr6Lp1TxCwhuwZ/uEKIpeuV9OJ6mAhImeDujFtyZDNU=; b=feo0wmaWxsBB6YgTijTCFb1HcQwRRBKmjFNe9w/c+lWjG4oeahGt6JQMXasqScoig9 3CKcWfb3V7pB6P+Su+8yD5wS8Rw5cvmM9x0jmwufmEGxgD4cdYCLCeR6geDqZGcmi6iH skIrXd0I+riSxefEakWcNuw778AWfHab+gA9wo5ZhLDC8A2WWTt4kxRBQZgb1kWyweUU EpODchPhiFO3Q7onjLUmS5TErk+a7SrRkru6LPopQg20dgMBw/Cd3v1ab4J+I02QDxyI jilpZP7UTySH2CiWetYdy0NQW4ThE7EiIDufU/a3BGMDH4mkMxsASj85o5c5Lf2hgkOF A9Gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kr6Lp1TxCwhuwZ/uEKIpeuV9OJ6mAhImeDujFtyZDNU=; b=XljhRIKiS73PoreIanHD/1gSyP6kloDDByfNULx7dr0+g4vpNl4rVcOagoA2p8tLgP JU2fSIIXBI1pQ38X4OVG9IUfG4ow5cV7D23fEAat+DAunidA+/wGuS/1VHCieFTCfKBE YpccgL/OXskEpOtcR8nR10yphV1lbJSYJafuDojFj0S36TPqkBn8a+7SRW0ABB24Bhao 9MG0CBh4Ku2b0VrpNOxtdGMcauAf2Lq+OusZndQ+Ecuf866P1+HwoYs15I/raZG+QffI 9+tj6Xy4HCJyaoXqGPQMvR8ug8vtnVF7kN7FKnhBkER/4W1PDh/xQWNGzcOjM2t6EFTf J+YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBOQgaz5lYc7FoFkVxNrMoB4vCbF3CjpIDAQuBLhqJshKrPiR8x QQwOO1EbeAVfj5NplFcG7ZzrzaPOVK5NbGe7YvA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225MT8rY7kQ7o2GsMcH+kFiark0EcUTj6NQ9SD4CZL4jWc287uZqsMIvkLEAWFxZub2+wwWjUk8x0+3r1F2rot8=
X-Received: by 10.129.87.2 with SMTP id l2mr513444ywb.454.1518098342047; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:59:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.21.201 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:59:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jfSqAYQCFXTJezXVd423sdt1r0njBCaLDp9vQK_KKXwww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKKJt-epFo2_iiOfH1hoXzzdDeEcxk8-U4-_bpSgUAP0CvYRTw@mail.gmail.com> <F8150E58-8A4A-433C-BF11-DC11D7E09DE4@primarydata.com> <CADaq8jfSqAYQCFXTJezXVd423sdt1r0njBCaLDp9vQK_KKXwww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:59:01 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eUEyy1CbkRn50PjQcSuqs1DSSeLCRuL1BGQ72hNsp91w@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>, "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a3c4e6973db0564b3d002"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/9j6bqsiPGOWg4nxRPch0Iz7qtA0>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-08
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:59:06 -0000

I looked at -09, and it seems quite reasonable. Thanks for your help during
AD Evaluation.

Mr. Spencer (S), are we ready for Last Call?

Spencer (D)

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:38 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I found myself wondering "unique within what scope?”
>
>
> > The server and stateid type.
>
> For v4.1, it's actually unique within the scope of a particlar
> client-server pair as repeented by
> a clientid.
>
> Section 8.2 of RFC5661 says:
>
> The server may assign stateids independently for different clients.
>
> A stateid with the same bit pattern for one client may designate an
>
> entirely different set of locks for a different client.  The stateid
>
> is always interpreted with respect to the client ID associated with
>
> the current session.  Stateids apply to all sessions associated with
>
> the given client ID, and the client may use a stateid obtained from
>
> one session on another session associated with the same client ID.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Authors,
>> >
>> > This draft looks quite clean. NFSv4 drafts usually do.
>> >
>> > I did make some notes during AD Evaluation, and would like to resolve
>> them before requesting IETF Last Call.
>> >
>> > Please let me know what you think.
>> >
>> > Spencer
>> >
>> > In this text from the 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.
>> >
>> > I'd suggest dropping "effectively" in the last sentence.
>> >
>>
>> Okay
>>
>>
>> > In this text,
>> >
>> >   The concept of layout type has a central role in the definition and
>> >    implementation of Parallel Network File System (pNFS).  Clients and
>> >    servers implementing different layout types behave differently in
>> >    many ways while conforming to the overall pNFS framework defined in
>> >    [RFC5661] and this document.
>> >
>> > I'd suggest adding the reference to [RFC5661] at the end of the first
>> sentence, since that's where pNFS is defined (right?). The existing
>> reference to [RFC5661] in the final sentence is fine.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Okay
>>
>>
>> > In this text,
>> >
>> >   As a consequence, new internet drafts (see [FlexFiles] and [Lustre])
>> >    may struggle to meet the requirements to be a pNFS layout type.
>> >
>> > I'd suggest "authors of new specifications" ... "may struggle”.
>>
>> Okay
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I understand that the Terminology section is in alphabetical order, but
>> could you consider whether a different organization might be helpful?
>> "loose coupling" and "tight coupling" seem useful to read together, for
>> instance, but they don't appear on the same page. If you tell me that doing
>> that doesn't seem helpful, I believe you …
>>
>> The only problem is that we might want to make the same change in the
>> Flex Files document.
>>
>> I’ve rearranged them such that the major concepts are grouped together.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > In this text,
>> >
>> >   layout stateid:  is a 128-bit quantity returned by a server that
>> >       uniquely defines the layout state provided by the server for a
>> >       specific layout that describes a layout type and file (see
>> >       Section 12.5.2 of [RFC5661]).
>> >
>> > I found myself wondering "unique within what scope?”
>>
>>
>> The server and stateid type.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > In this text,
>> >
>> > 3.  The Control Protocol
>> >
>> >    A layout type has to meet the requirements that apply to the
>> >    interaction between the metadata server and the storage device such
>> >    that they present to the client a consistent view of stored data and
>> >    lock state (Section 12.2.6 of [RFC5661]).  Particular implementations
>> >    may satisfy these requirements in any manner they choose and the
>> >    mechanism chosen need not be described as a protocol.
>> >
>> > could you give an example of a mechanism that wouldn't be described as
>> a protocol? I can guess, but I'm guessing. The SCSI layout given as an
>> example a bit further down this section is the kind of example I'm thinking
>> about here.
>> >
>>
>> I was actually thinking not of layout types, but of implementations of a
>> Layout Type.
>>
>> The prime example is the NFSv4.1 file layout type as implemented in Data
>> ONTAP by NetApp. The view of stored data, the stateid validation, and the
>> locking state are handled by their clustering software. Do I have a
>> citation for that? Nope.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The security considerations section deflects the reader to the security
>> considerations that appear in layout type specifications, but doesn't
>> provide any specific references to guide the user in finding such
>> specifications. Would it be possible to provide pointers to layout type
>> definition documents, even if there are only one or two that would make
>> sense?
>>
>>
>> While my intent is to say “read the security considerations of each
>> Layout Type spec”, I can present an example.
>>
>> I went with adding this to the end of the paragraph:
>>
>>     For example, in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC5663" />, the lack
>>     of finer-than-physical disk access control necessitates that the
>>     client is delegated the responsibility to enforce the access
>>     provided to them in the layout extent which they were granted by
>>     the metadata server.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>
>