Re: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-03 (part one of three)

Chuck Lever <> Wed, 21 December 2016 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9396C1294C7 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2C7A3oSlmJKT for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932F912948A for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id uBLIhumq003634 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:43:57 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uBLIhtGo008235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:43:56 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uBLIht5U026563; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:43:55 GMT
Received: from (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:43:55 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Chuck Lever <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:43:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: David Noveck <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Source-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-03 (part one of three)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:43:59 -0000

> On Dec 21, 2016, at 1:16 PM, David Noveck <> wrote:
> > Because I'm not taking "the last of these approaches" (see
> > above), 
> This third approach was:
> Restructure the document to distinguish material required by rfc566bis and applicable to all transport versions from explanatory/illustrative  material tied to Version One.
> I'm not clear why you object to this and what you propose to do instead.  You are very clear why you don't want to adopt either of the first two approaches listed above.

I plan to replace data placement mechanism-specific language that you
objected to (but did not replace in your proposed changes) with the generic
terminology we introduce in rfc5666bis.

That's probably closest to your "approach two" but with as little redaction
as I can get away with.

It's not the approach you took in your proposed changes. So as I said, I
will use your proposals as guidance, but probably not merge them wholesale.

I stated some risks to this approach. I'm willing to try it anyway. It's
only spilled electrons, trapped in a change control system, that can be
reverted if we end up not liking them.

> > at least for now, I will probably not merge many of your proposed
> > changes in this area, but will use the body of your remarks as a guide to
> > rework the text to be agnostic to data placement mechanism.
> OK, but your point above is that this might result in a document that is unclear to implementers, so I think it will need to supplemented by material which is not transport-version-agnostic.  If you have such material, it needs to be clearly labeled as transport-version specific.

Agreed. In any event, I will produce a revision soon, and you can see if
I've corrected the issues you identified.

Chuck Lever