[nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Tue, 18 April 2017 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 DCFE912EAED for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tyJRkTHT0U71 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F252F1270AC for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 70so16223977ita.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H5M9+rspce2upLiOVz1Dd4SaZL+TrtRt3l/ti/SkKh8=; b=ieYnJ10fUIAUuUW6JtEpMID+3REyybKjrD5qW+TuwKwPzUNd4URwcqjbX6k8bXWooG J5tB324OESUSah2kd9FH3UpZmZFiC8No7mFVlPc49yPX1e98Axx2Gnbak/Iq10IuOkfH PolnZDT0HCTyoZvTLGRpMxMmrBLAIfkOG/F9jNSAfH5ST/5JuM/6IU5J3Wqx5CorGsol T/qBlOFWBn57Q+RZ6n/ZJ5cLvXlwfIRWsBEnL9xbKAgsCq7VtElpu9EWUgydNlF/xSrJ BdrmjGkXKonQ6mq7lQTqgRZ2cUoEIHLgZpnOYFwbMFAcDt+CPQXxlfJQBGdSXZmtE/IC RGSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H5M9+rspce2upLiOVz1Dd4SaZL+TrtRt3l/ti/SkKh8=; b=QEaOI/VL9iROnCMXb7/c+C6m5Itry9mbr7ty5icfvSsBgay28itzpjPS4xjvJtl6CG T56oh4FBXGRfqKPX/LXLzqtjj+836G1V7tauGsUkDzrusi6w0H+u1KipLsT1yQZe2RUG 4rQS8zcjTidSn7X0apULQKEYbiE7LI3Xe+LIeOwsQGxtMf0RRuelR3JQ/Ca3KmcFdXpq RkzgmXHvbhg8xrfvthO7bV48tdxRViUZutZ4KsFX5/7XRuma88+GpafUblHvcgq0G7f7 OopKotafJGFkR8ERs0Qn0Ce0wOTE8hlvglkwnO7tdCbtMZrEQMs9pc9okwymONLlqGsn 2BBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6HA1fTrJyqyguKcWQdEAlLCbAqwnmCQlofvyLg6zaTb+O1Buuz tAr9msiIcyWLZjBoQCjI4aTi4JjuvA==
X-Received: by 10.36.175.28 with SMTP id t28mr16871091ite.68.1492543309098; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.175.14 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:21:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdkGgL+H-yoO-+bTNbSYiE_1us9cN5SXY8QV0gfYfK0Ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045da082c04be7054d75d10b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/MbqCulaZlWMM1U1rby43bcoIDoI>
Subject: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:21:52 -0000

*Overall Evaluation*

Major improvement over RFC5667.  Almost ready to ship.  No technical issues.

A lot of my comments are basically editorial and are offered on a
take-it-or-lease-it basis.

I think some clarification in Section 5.4.1 is needed although not
necessarily in the ways suggested below,

*Comments by Section*

*5.4.1.  Multiple DDP-eligible Data Items*

Given that READ_PLUS no longer has any DDP-eligible data items, the
situation described in the fifth bullet can no longer arise.  I
suggest deleting the bullet.

The penultimate paragraph can be read as applying to some situations
in which it shouldn't and where the extra chunks would very naturally
ignored.  For example, if you had on write chunk together with a READ
operation which failed, the server would have more chunks (i.e. one)
than the number it is prepared to process (i.e. zero).  Suggest, as a
possible replacement:

Normally, when an NFS version 4 client sends an RPC Call with a Write
list that contains multiple chunks. each such, when matched with a
DDP-eligible data item in the response, directs the placement of the
data item as specified by [I.D.-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].  When there are
DDP-eligible data items matched to write chunks that an NFS version 4
server is not prepared to process, the server MUST reject the RPC  by
responding with an RDMA_ERROR message with the rdma_err value set to
ERR_CHUNK.

With regard to the last paragraph, I am curious that this paragraph, unlike
the previous one, allows GARBGEARGS. Is this so because that would be
allowed if the chunks in question had offsets other than those that
correspond to DDP-eligible data items? If so, please consider the following
possible replacement.

Normally, when an NFS version 4 client sends an RPC Call with a Read
list that contains multiple chunks, each such, when properly matched
with a DDP-eliigible data item in the request, directs the fetching of
the the data item as specified by [I.D.-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]. When there
are DDP-eligible data items matched to read chunks that an NFS version
4 server is not prepared to process, the server MUST reject the RPC
by responding with an RDMA_ERROR message with the rdma_err value set
to ERR_CHUNK.

*5.6.  Session-Related Considerations*

In the third sentence of the second paragraph, suggest replacing "no
different" by "not different".

In the last sentence of the last  paragraph, suggest replacing "is
not" by "were not"