[nfsv4] my (partial) review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-00
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Wed, 31 December 2014 01:49 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39AB1A8A10 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 nkMFArEmcl7T for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C55CA1A8A0D for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id va2so46040831obc.8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ESrHzy19bLzYsSkKGuj3qRibCIN9B8zMud0/FDg4lKg=; b=fYM2aHZYAoDkHRKnVpVLxm/bnSme6W7Vd3YLbuNy+5vQ8xEHV7EqPakxZ0yTARa+iY UUMqrfx8lMX+8O64leI8Vf9ds/iZ3UXlr/my2Ubk+SmhLZpsNm7VVRJOouBjHBvYZKVl P0+9TPufIeIRu5OIZ+9X+k8YEvJmvtStE/7PdHCKX0HhmSTfICnNgUBcDvSCSQu5WKSt aPGc3VvXDahjl1u5kD5QbSg+QjzuivQeDCRckMyVEAJRKPF+s5iI7oVJFga8CSkGwWA4 +0e11oLzgPzUo0peVJ7Cu9FocJCGtSD9dmtsjJkm/SeI3fuQTnz8PHy7U9dE1DM3GrzA z8aQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.54.86 with SMTP id d83mr35912910oia.55.1419990580955; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.27.198 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:49:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfFefm7j=A7sLXG9jRMUTBL-kCT6mr-oFOk8egh0Qcm1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
To: andros@netapp.com, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ce1b029911d050b7952a2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Ea-flZC5CcUaskm8v-j63zgr3sg
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: [nfsv4] my (partial) review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-00
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 01:49:44 -0000
I have gone through this document and think that it is good work that needs to be published, but there are a few matters that the working group needs to discuss before a more extensive review is useful. So this review is limited to the first sixteen lines of the draft (intended-status, title, abstract). Given that I've found so many things that I don't like in such a short space, my claim that I like this document might seem kind of strange. However, my big issue is that most of this preliminary material doesn't really match the document that we have before us. One or the other has to change and I would much prefer that the preliminary material be changed to match the document body rather than the reverse. BTW, I have no issues with lines 1-2, 4-6, and 9-11, so actually I have only eight lines to review :-) So let's start at line 3, "intended status": I don't see how this document can be standards-track. It does not define a new feature and it is not marked as updating RFC5661 or RFC3530bis. I understand that this document is intended to satisfy the charter item that refers to "constraints and clarifications to the current NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 protocols" but the current document isn't written to do that. It is true that the handling of users and groups in RFC5661 and RFC3530bis could use some clarification but I think that is best done in a document solely devoted to that cleanup. My view regarding these matters: - Those sections are written assuming that if the client and server agree on how they handle name and domain everything will out, which is true, but it doesn't even begin to specify how clients and servers might come to agreement on that. - Although the problems are most pressing in the case of multi-domain deployments, there are problems with single-domain deployments as well. Consider the case in which the server is set up to do the appropriate uid-name mapping and the client isn't. In this case, the client will receive name strings it is not prepared to decode. - To really clarify this, you would have to be prepared to rewrite the relevant sections and I don't think anyone is up for that right now. - if you did go down that path, you wold face the issue of required protocol extensions, if not to allow client and server to negotiate appropriate handling, at least to allow client and server to decide whether they match. I don't think that could be done until we have an NFSv4 versioning RFC. This document specifies how one might deploy/administer an NFSv4 namespace that involves multiple domains, and is helpful in that regard. It makes sense to me as an informational RFC. Regarding charter issues, I think we need to focus on clearly saying what needs to be said and what we think people need to understand and leave it to Spencer, Beepy, and Martin to address any purported charter issues. Now Let's go to line 7, the title: A more descriptive title would be "Creation of Multi-domain NFSv4 Namespaces." The words "Requirements for" could be prepended. They don't add anything but they might be helpful in avoiding having to change the file name, which might lead to document management difficulties. We now move from the "Document Title Chainsaw Massacre" portion of our program to the sequel "Document Chainsaw Massacre II, the Abstract". "This document describes constraints" The heart of the problem as I see it is that it seems that the abstract was written to match the charter item, rather than summarizing the document in question. It is not clear what "constraints to the protocols" means and we should clearly say what is done which is to specify constraints to the deployment/administration of the protocols. Any such constraints are a minor part of the Document and should not be mentioned so prominently (with more major item relegated to "as well as"). "to the NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 protocols" This is really about all NFSv4 protocols. "as well as the use of multi-domain capable file systems" This is really the heart of the matter. As I understand it, the line of demarcation between this document and the subsequent one is that this one is built assuming the use of multi-domain-capable file systems. "name resolution services, and security services required" Yup. "to fully enable a multiple NFSv4 domain file system," Not clear what "fully enable" means. Also, we are supporting a namespace rather than a filesystem such as a multiple NFSv4 domain Federated File System. call me "old-fashioned" but I have trouble parsing phrases like that which have lots of nouns used as adjectives. So how about the following as a summary of the document: This document describes an approach to the construction of a file system name space supporting use of the NFSv4 protocols and allowing use of multiple NFSv4 domains. This approach involves use of multi-domain capable file systems. Also described are name resolution services and security services as well as administrative constraints appropriate to such a system. Such a namespace is a suitable way to enable a Federated File System supporting the use of multiple NFSv4 domains.
- [nfsv4] my (partial) review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-m… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] my (partial) review of draft-ietf-nfs… Adamson, Andy
- Re: [nfsv4] my (partial) review of draft-ietf-nfs… David Noveck