[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
Return-Path: <pengshuping@huawei.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 B75AFC1524DC; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHqFLfz_rQoO; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96658C14F749; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XSHGS243Tz6LCsy; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:54:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.162.219]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 387D0140A34; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:59:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemf200018.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.11) by lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 02:59:07 +0100
Received: from kwepemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.4) by kwepemf200018.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:59:05 +0800
Received: from kwepemf500017.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.4]) by kwepemf500017.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.4]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:59:05 +0800
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
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.153.179.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: 44H7JWLMJV5GAHCG6PVRJNRDPGOCOCHA
X-Message-ID-Hash: 44H7JWLMJV5GAHCG6PVRJNRDPGOCOCHA
X-MailFrom: pengshuping@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-nfsv4.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
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>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [nfsv4] Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/LkJST-l2MW4sl4f_lAV4I2oikog>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nfsv4-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-leave@ietf.org>
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)