Re: [nfsv4] Remaining errata reports for rfc5661bis

[Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 30, 2022, at 9:27 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

The following are not, for various reasons, listed as addressed in draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-rfc5661bis-05.   I'd like to start wg discussion of these so that we can address as many as possible in draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661bis-00.

  *   2722

This was actually addressed in rfc8881 😊.  See Err930 (attached) for an updated list

  *   2751

I'm kind of uncertain about the proposed new section 12.5.4.1.   Given its size, it needs some working group discussion before being put in an RFC.

I agree, further WG discussion is warranted.


  *   3067

I'm OK with the substance of this but:

     *   I'm unclear what "deprecated" means in a Proposed Standard.

I propose simply removing the sentence containing "deprecated".


     *   Regarding use of "SHOULD", unclear what might be valid rasons to ignore the recommendation.  Also, am dubious about the capacity of non-zero values to cause harm given thathe server is ignoring them.

I propose removing that sentence as well.


     *   Worried about the use of lower-case "should" in he last two sentences.

I propose replacing "should" with "MUST" in both sentences.


  *   4118

I'm OK with the substance of this but:

     *   Think the "SHOULD" in the third sentence is not appropriate.  Think "is to be ignored" is better.

I propose replacing "SHOULD" with "MUST".


     *   For the fourth sentence suggest "The client can validly finish any outstanding I/Os that reference the previously   provided device-ID-to-device-address mapping and would have to use GETDEVICEINFO to obtain the updated mapping for the previously provided device-ID-to-device-address mapping before requesting new layouts" as a replacement.

I prefer the fourth sentence proposed in the errata. Can you say what your proposed replacement fixes?

Is the phrase "before requesting new layouts" a protocol requirement, and thus should it be stated using a compliance keyword?


     *   Unclear to me whether recall of "all oustanding layouts" is right or whether only the invalidated ones is inteded.

No opinion.


  *   5982

This is tentatively addressed in -04 in a eevised description of CLOSE but want to have working group dicussion of the new text before we consider this done.  In any case, what is in rfc8881 us self-contradictory and needs to be changed.

Because the replier "is permitted (but not always obligated) to return NFS4ERR_FALSE_RETRY", I read the suggestions in the original text as implementation guidance, and not as Mandatory-To-Implement. Thus I am not troubled by the original text -- implementers are free to choose not to use checksumming or other techniques when direct data placement is employed.

--
Chuck Lever