[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, 3 Sep 2020 04:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
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