IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Wed, 30 August 2017 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.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 189011323B5 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=KtcTaRHi; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=CyZGXien
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 KvR956ZAVU6t for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.153.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27ABE13233D for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1504103196; x=1535639196; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LuRsRwaaQQoIxAzUw2Dkxye5yMOxOjO/KG2m61Rh0V0=; b=KtcTaRHiQ5GzF9ify7O5P2p/vU8+cnWxrcmr2Us3Eh9p82uyJ/hJXe6s Ou1xEpj1OYi2+LVb1jkG4+8abshxvMoos1JdSNoN2Cq+28SDmSQjWZa8m N5/TAHiWa931kIxJyK1qjsXlM0aURcYLB4057nXcxZOWTIHQ2lWL39THo M=;
Received: from esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.201]) by esa1.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2017 09:26:36 -0500
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com ([128.221.224.79]) by esa1.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2017 20:26:34 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.155]) by mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v7UEZwTL002229 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:36:01 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com v7UEZwTL002229
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1504103761; bh=8m9q5yrN5cysmUw4dHOuul6Uzb8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=CyZGXien+UFPuadUzVEVbwwcWwEms9JmsLbOVRvK/HsGk/TCCR2KNr3THQiltuxza ZeulRWqCtvX1I0oln5WBg7mpoDZRXx5Hg2WuqadZMAfYQIPbhTHeevC7EMSjeeNLlC X7X6ExrkbM+6yRPY9kHb3Cla7/D3kcdBAKslAzbY=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com v7UEZwTL002229
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:35:39 -0400
Received: from MXHUB315.corp.emc.com (MXHUB315.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.93]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v7UEZdgf025718 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:35:39 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB315.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:35:38 -0400
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
CC: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTIQoN3kSxKg3AvUiv46S2y9a/2qKb1OAAgABXbAD//8v3kIAAYBWAgACgApA=
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:35:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC2A7E4@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <150404051071.32268.12603067292136611968@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC270CD@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <E7A90550-6855-4597-9759-E1895C6FBE1A@primarydata.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC27434@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <F96D9FAF-9725-4380-8C3A-13293F65884B@primarydata.com>
In-Reply-To: <F96D9FAF-9725-4380-8C3A-13293F65884B@primarydata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.2.174]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/FagKLQhnkZwQorJxjzYHEbEwEoc>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:36:05 -0000

Looks good, Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Haynes [mailto:loghyr@primarydata.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:03 PM
> To: Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
> Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-07.txt
> 
> 
> > On Aug 29, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Following up on this one item, as everything else in your email is fine with
> me:
> >
> >>> -- Section 3.1 item (2)
> >>>
> >>> It might be helpful to add a sentence or two to state that these layout
> >> revocation requirements do not apply to layout recall, where the client's
> >> cooperative participation is expected (with layout revocation available as a
> >> fallback if the client does not cooperate).
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently:
> >>
> >>          The metadata
> >>          server typically would revoke a layout whenever a client fails
> >>          to respond to a recall or a client's lease is expired due to
> >>          non-renewal.
> >>
> >> Is it too subtle?
> >>
> >> And remember we did define both revoking and recalling a layout in
> Section
> >> 2.
> >
> > Yup - I wrote too much in my comment - "requirements do not apply to
> layout recall" is the only thing that's not obvious.
> >
> > I'd suggest adding one more sentence as a separate paragraph at the end
> of item (2):
> >
> > 	In contrast, there is no requirement to restrict access to a file
> > 	on the storage devices when a layout is recalled.
> >
> > Thanks, --David
> >
> 
> Okay, that took a little bit of thinking to realize that the key point here was
> the last word.
> 
> I think this is a little bit of domain expertise in that I am assuming the reader
> is aware
> that a recall turns into a revocation goes bad.
> 
> I have added the following additional paragraph:
> 
>           In contrast, there is no requirement to restrict access to a file
>           on the storage devices when a layout is recalled.  It is only
>           after the metadata server determines that the client is
>           not gracefully returning the layout and starts the revocation
>           that this requirement is enforced.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email