[nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5982)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 03 September 2020 11:29 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 D086A3A046A; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 04:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nxhhBXCwkpkA; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 04:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 926B03A044A; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 04:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 00ADDF40782; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 04:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: davenoveck@gmail.com, shepler@storspeed.com, mike@eisler.com, dnoveck@netapp.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200903112930.00ADDF40782@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 04:29:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/LM6mtZsvz6SitVFRyzOEaaSWfJY>
Subject: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5982)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 11:29:46 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5661, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5982 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2020-02-13 Rejected by: Magnus Westerlund (IESG) Section: 2.10.6.1.3.1 Original Text ------------- If a requester sent a Sequence operation with a slot ID and sequence ID that are in the reply cache but the replier detected that the retried request is not the same as the original request, including a retry that has different operations or different arguments in the operations from the original and a retry that uses a different principal in the RPC request's credential field that translates to a different user, then this is a false retry. When the replier detects a false retry, it is permitted (but not always obligated) to return NFS4ERR_FALSE_RETRY in response to the Sequence operation when it detects a false retry. Corrected Text -------------- If a requester sent a Sequence operation with a slot ID and sequence ID that are in the reply cache but the replier detected that the retried request is not the same as the original request, including a retry that was issued with a different XID or has different operations or different arguments in the operations from the original and a retry that uses a different principal in the RPC request's credential field that translates to a different user, then this is a false retry. When the replier detects a false retry, it is permitted (but not always obligated) to return NFS4ERR_FALSE_RETRY in response to the Sequence operation when it detects a false retry Notes ----- The existing text can be read as requiring checksumming of all requests to foreclose the possibility of not noticing a false retry, which can result in data corruption. This can be a significant performance consideraation in the processing of WRITE requests and could undercut the benefits of directly placing data to be written which is one of the impotant goals of RPC-over-RDMA. --VERIFIER NOTES-- No consensus in the WG if this is just a correction. Thus rejecting the issue and may be brought for WG consenus discussion in the context of document update. -------------------------------------- RFC5661 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-29) -------------------------------------- Title : Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol Publication Date : January 2010 Author(s) : S. Shepler, Ed., M. Eisler, Ed., D. Noveck, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network File System Version 4 Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5982) RFC Errata System