Re: [nfsv4] possible minor corrections of federated-fs-admin-05

James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com> Thu, 23 September 2010 20:43 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 A45283A69FB for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_REPLIC_CAP=6.557, 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 29ofvRY4iPF2 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB84A3A69A8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,225,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="456861200"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2010 13:43:25 -0700
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 o8NKhOwV009497; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:43:24 -0400
From: James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com>
X-X-Sender: jlentini@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <D661DECC-FF90-47F7-B880-6104D98DCA27@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009231621280.21841@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com>
References: <18218677-5DBE-4ABB-9FF9-E737AC458533@oracle.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009230935110.21841@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com> <D661DECC-FF90-47F7-B880-6104D98DCA27@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] possible minor corrections of federated-fs-admin-05
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, 23 Sep 2010 20:43:11 -0000

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote:

> 
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, James Lentini wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi James-
> >> 
> >> The last paragraph of Chapter 5 section 3 says:
> >> 
> >>> If the junction is resolved, the fileserver will indicate the type of resolution that was performed using the FedFsResolveRes's resolve value and include a list of UUIDs for the FSN's FSLs in the FedFsResolveRes's fslUuid array.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I think that language needs to be updated to reflect what is now 
> >> returned in the result of FEDFS_LOOKUP_JUNCTION.  Most important is 
> >> that an array of FedFsFsl structures is returned, not an array of 
> >> fslUuids.  I don't recall seeing this change in the most recent set 
> >> of diffs, but my memory could be foggy.
> > 
> > Good catch. I will correct that.
> > 
> >> Also, we had previously discussed adding a unique error code to the 
> >> protocol for "procedure not implemented".  Can that be added in the 
> >> next draft update?
> > 
> > Yes, I can add a FEDFS_ERR_NOTSUPP.
> > 
> > At the start of Section 5, the specification requires fileservers with 
> > junctions (internal nodes) to implement all of the procedures. The 
> > procedures are only optional for fileservers that don't support 
> > junctions (leaf nodes), so only leaf nodes would be allowed to return 
> > FEDFS_ERR_NOTSUPP.
> 
> What about CREATE_REPLICATION and friends?

They're currently on the MUST list for internal nodes.

> Can FEDFS_LOOKUP_JUNCTION return NOTSUPP for certain resolveTypes?

Did you have a specific case in mind?

There are several specific error codes, FEDFS_ERR_PATH_TYPE_UNSUPP, 
etc., for reporting LOOKUP errors. Error codes for reporting problems 
with FEDFS_RESOLVE_CACHE requests will be added in the next (-06) 
version of the draft.

Speaking of that, it doesn't appear that anyone proposed 
names/definitions for those errors during the 9/2/10 FedFS meeting (if 
there was a proposal, I apologize for leaving it out of the meeting 
minutes). Do these definitions capture what we agreed to at that 
meeting?


   FEDFS_ERR_NO_CACHE:  The fileserver does not implement an FSN-to-FSL
      cache.

   FEDFS_ERR_UNKOWN_CACHE:  The software receiving the ONC RPC request
      is unaware if the fileserver implements an FSN-to-FSL cache or
      unable to communicate with the FSN-to-FSL cache if it exists.


> > Which procedures should be allowed to return FEDFS_ERR_NOTSUPP? All of 
> > the procedures except FEDFS_NULL?