[nfsv4] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01

"Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com> Tue, 15 October 2024 01:59 UTC

From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@hammerspace.com>
Thread-Topic: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01
Thread-Index: AQHbHlr06ca2qggxSU64j8JEgArFO7KHDjcw
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:59:05 +0000
Message-ID: <04338d453f064f75aff1aa5f609cdae7@huawei.com>
References: <172431427928.2528543.17950906430538024372@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k> <0D124FFA-F566-4B51-A7B8-EA372A0EA77F@hammerspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D124FFA-F566-4B51-A7B8-EA372A0EA77F@hammerspace.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: 44H7JWLMJV5GAHCG6PVRJNRDPGOCOCHA
CC: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: [nfsv4] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/LkJST-l2MW4sl4f_lAV4I2oikog>

Hi Thomas, 

These are clear to me now. Thank you! 

Best Regards, 
Shuping 


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@hammerspace.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 1:03 AM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Cc: art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01


Hi Shuping,

Thanks for the review, I’m sorry I lost it in a storm of reviews over 3 documents.

Comments inline

> On Aug 22, 2024, at 1:11 AM, Shuping Peng via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be 
> resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> Major Issues:
> "No major issues found."
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> 1.1 Definitions
> I found that the terms listed here are exactly the same as those 
> defined in RFC8435. So I wonder whether it would make sense to simply 
> refer to RFC8435 instead of repeating them.
> 

I’m fine with that.


> 2. Layout State Recovery
> "After the grace period:
> If the client were to send any lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with 
> the anonymous stateid of all zeros, then the metadata server would 
> respond with an error of NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (see Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC8881])."
> 
> I am not sure whether there is an mistake in this sentence: "to send 
> any lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with the anonymous stateid of all zeros"?
> Should "with" be "other than"?
> 

No, it is correct.

A  lrf_stateid of all zeros means to report errors from a previous boot instance.

It is only valid before grace ends and not valid after grace ends.

The flip is that a regular lrf_stateid is not valid before grace ends and valid after grace ends.



> 4. IANA Considerations
> "IANA should use the current document (RFC-TBD) as the reference for 
> the new entries."


I guess I need to reword this. But basically it means if I use RFC-TDB anywhere in the document, replace it with the new document ID.

This is boiler plate for me and it seems to confuse everyone.

Would it be better to just say “There are no IANA considerations.” ?

Or remove the section altogether?

> 
> What are the "new entries" mentioned in this sentence? Would it be 
> clearer to list them here?
> 
> Nits:
> 
> None
> 
>

[nfsv4] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfs… Shuping Peng via Datatracker
[nfsv4] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf… Thomas Haynes
[nfsv4] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)