Re: [nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-26: (with COMMENT)
"Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com> Fri, 16 August 2013 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <Tom.Haynes@netapp.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 57BE411E81A9; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XepT5N+4YHBd; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225E121F9CF1; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,897,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="81661223"
Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2013 15:09:24 -0700
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.252]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:09:23 -0700
From: "Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
Thread-Topic: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-26: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHOWzP3F0W0kjRrH0e/Iu8OwpRKV5mZWXeA
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:09:23 +0000
Message-ID: <C8355A5E-F394-4427-8EC2-682D831E12D0@netapp.com>
References: <20130527234301.12013.54101.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130527234301.12013.54101.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6E2AF04B4E5A944496A5C5B07ACEA34E@hq.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "nfsv4 list (nfsv4@ietf.org)" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-26: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:09:47 -0000
Spencer, Thanks for the review! Tom On May 27, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org> wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-26: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm balloting "YES", but I'm providing a number of comments. Please don't > be discouraged. I have 14 comments, for an average of one comment every > 23 pages :-) > > Several are nits. Several others are places where I didn't think the > meaning was clear. I do have three questions. > > None of these questions are blocking, but I'd appreciate it if you could > look at 3.1, 5.6 and 9.14. > > In this text: > > 1.2. Inconsistencies of this Document with the companion document NFS > Version 4 Protocol > > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x], NFS Version 4 Protocol, contains > the definitions in XDR description language of the constructs used by > the protocol. Inside this document, several of the constructs are > reproduced for purposes of explanation. The reader is warned of the > possibility of errors in the reproduced constructs outside of > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x]. For any part of the document that > is inconsistent with [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x], > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x] is to be considered authoritative. > > It took me a few reads to be somewhat confident that I understood what > this text says - the first few times, I was reading it as "these are the > inconsistencies between the two documents, but we're publishing both > documents without fixing them". I think the section title was about half > of my problem. I know that's not what you meant :-) > > Am I reading it correctly, if I restate it this way? > > 1.2. Definitions in the companion document NFS Version 4 Protocol are > Authoritative ok > > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x], NFS Version 4 Protocol, contains > the definitions in XDR description language of the constructs used by > the protocol. Inside this document, several of those constructs are > reproduced for purposes of explanation. The reader is warned of the > possibility of errors in the reproduced constructs in this > document. For any part of this document that > is inconsistent with [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x], > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x] is to be considered authoritative. > > In this text: > > 1.3.3. Filesystem Model > > The NFSv4 protocol does not require a separate protocol to provide > for the initial mapping between path name and filehandle. Instead of > using the older MOUNT protocol for this mapping, the server provides > a ROOT filehandle that represents the logical root or top of the > filesystem tree provided by the server. The server provides multiple > filesystems by gluing them together with pseudo filesystems. These > pseudo filesystems provide for potential gaps in the path names > between real filesystems. > > Is "potential gaps" a term of art in the NFS community? It hasn't been > defined in the spec, and "gap" only appears one other place in the spec, > in Section 8.6. I can figure it out from the discussion in 8.6, but > that's more than 100 pages into the spec. I'm okay with leaving this as is. > > In this text: > > 1.3.3.3. Multi-server Namespace > > These attributes may be used together with the concept of absent file > systems, which provide specifications for additional locations but no > actual file system content. > > Is "absent file system" a term of art in the NFS community? It's defined > in section 7.2, but that's the 7th occurrence in the document, about 75 > pages in. > Added to general definitions > In this text: > > 3.1. Ports and Transports > > To date, all NFSv4 implementations are TCP based, i.e., there are > none for SCTP nor UDP. UDP by itself is not sufficient as a > transport for NFSv4, neither is UDP in combination with some other > mechanism (e.g., DCCP [RFC4340], NORM [RFC5740]). > > "some other mechanism" wasn't clear to me. Could you help me understand > what this sentence is saying about DCCP and NORM, and what the problems > are if you tried to use (for example) NFSv4 over DCCP? I believe you, > it's just unclear to me from the text what reason you have for saying > this. I'm going to let someone from the WG chime in here. > > In this text: > > 5.6. REQUIRED Attributes - List and Definition References > > o Id: The number assigned to the attribute. In the event of > conflicts between the assigned number and > [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x], the latter is likely > authoritative, but should be resolved with Errata to this document > and/or [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x]. See [ISEG_errata] for > the Errata process. > > I'm struggling with "is likely authoritative". I suspect that part of my > struggle is that you're talking about how to resolve possible conflicts > between this spec, another spec, and an IANA registry. You're sort of > picking a designated tie-breaker, but the reader still has to try to > figure out what the right answer should be. Given that you're telling > people to be prepared to resolve conflicts using the errata process, do > you need to say more than that? I've touched this one up. > > In this text: > > 5.8.2.26. Attribute 40: quota_used > > The value in bytes that represents the amount of disc space used by > this file or directory and possibly a number of other similar files > or directories, where the set of "similar" meets at least the > criterion that allocating space to any file or directory in the set > will reduce the "quota_avail_hard" of every other file or directory > in the set. > > I noted a "disc" among the "disk"s. fixed > > In this text: > > 7.7. Effecting File System Transitions > > Transitions between file system instances, whether due to switching > between replicas upon server unavailability or to server-initiated > migration events, are best dealt with together. This is so even > though, for the server, pragmatic considerations will normally force > different implementation strategies for planned and unplanned > transitions. > > these two sentences would have made more sense to me if they used the > same words to describe the same thing. If I'm getting the parallels > right, one way to do that, would be > > 7.7. Effecting File System Transitions > > Transitions between file system instances, whether due to switching > ^ unplanned > between replicas upon server unavailability or to server-initiated > ^ planned > migration events, are best dealt with together. This is so even > though, for the server, pragmatic considerations will normally force > different implementation strategies for planned and unplanned > transitions. That section has been removed. > > In this text: > > 9.14. Migration, Replication and State > > If a server replica or a server immigrating a filesystem agrees to, > or is expected to, accept opaque values from the client that > originated from another server, then it is a wise implementation > practice for the servers to encode the "opaque" values in network > byte order. This way, servers acting as replicas or immigrating > filesystems will be able to parse values like stateids, directory > cookies, filehandles, etc. even if their native byte order is > different from other servers cooperating in the replication and > migration of the filesystem. > > I'm having a difficult time connecting "it is a wise implementation > practice" to "*will* be able to parse" - is it obvious to the replica > server that the opaque values have been encoded in network byte order, so > it's safe to parse values based on that? Or are these servers expected to > be tightly coupled enough that each server knows whether other servers > will encode opaque values "wisely"? Moved to a SHOULD > > In this text: > > 10.2.1. Delegation Recovery > > o Upon reclaim, a client reporting resources assigned to it by an > earlier server instance must be granted those resources. > > Is "reporting" the right word? This may be a term of art, but I'm not > seeing other places in the specification where clients "report" resources > to servers. Someone was probably trying to avoid "claiming". I had no such fear here! > > Just a little further down: > > Situations in which there us a series of client and server restarts > > I'm pretty sure this is "there is a series" ok > > In this text: > > 12.4.1. Processing of Principal Strings > > The string should be scanned for at-signs. If there is more that one > at-sign, the string is considered invalid. > > I'm pretty sure this is "more than one" Rewritten section > > In this text: > > 15.18.3. RESULT > > nfs_space_limit4 > space_limit; /* Defines condition that > the client must check to > determine whether the > file needs to be flushed > to the server on close. */ > > I'm no expert, but could I ask you to check whether this is the right > description for this struct? nfs_space_limit4 looks like it's either a > file size or a number of blocks, and I wasn't understanding how that was > a "condition" or how the limit had anything to do with flushing a file to > the server on close, so I'm wondering about a cut-and-paste error. A 10 year old cut and paste. Anyone on the WG alias care to comment? > > In this text: > > 15.33.5. IMPLEMENTATION > > Note that a server MAY use the AUTH_NONE flavor to signify that the > client is allowed to attempt to use authentication flavors that are > not explicitly listed in the SECINFO results. Instead of using a > listed flavor, the client might then, for instance opt to use an > otherwise unlisted RPCSEC_GSS mechanism instead of AUTH_NONE. It may > wish to do so in order to meet an application requirement for data > integrity or privacy. In choosing to use an unlisted flavor, the > client SHOULD always be prepared to handle a failure by falling back > to using AUTH_NONE or another listed flavor. It MUST NOT assume that > identity mapping is supported, and should be prepared for the fact > that its identity is squashed. > ^^^^^^^^ > > Is "squashed" a term of art in the NFS community? It's not defined, it > only appears once in the document, and it wasn't obvious to me what > reference I should be checking to understand the sentence. > Yes, it is. > In this text: > > 18.1. Named Attribute Definitions > > Under the NFSv4 specification, the name of a named attribute can in > theory be up to 2^32 - 1 bytes in length, but in practice NFSv4 > clients and servers will be unable to a handle string that long. > > Something is garbled here. I'm guessing "will be unable to handle a > string that long", but that's guessing ... > >