Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.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 0C2C0120103; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:24:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.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 d54bbdbAaIj5; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userp2130.oracle.com (userp2130.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A78120108; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DEMVb9047738; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:12 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=Mc1bPyMekiN1y1uKRUu+93MLEqaPhjYLcUIhar1Kf+E=; b=NO45brIFIiJHvzAFg0t/exJKKoLk4FAXpzHOMULioGh7mCLQ8+MmvUtCcGipxmfm9+fG N4hfbunVLT3yeOzcImvHCq283aHDvYzRpfG4yrtF8G9uQ+ZrTrPaH6yp2EeUXfuFvlgS 4WeAECmMz2aDkInqzWyjjyzNaBq7sGihQ7JBjtzxDvVkx/3sthMlAFXv9A04xisUmDZC KvYXLgfCFQBcOFik31KlBbH1/Ui5uA4BiPy39T8/LqPSub9eql9LIb6x1JYjq97vH2/k TpxUbbgg0zeiAbtwRkw48HeGyV5d969Wz0E4u87oLUslcZ8/osNBgxt8EvufF2yXCAIQ bg==
Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2k88j8ff-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:12 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DENNfi012882; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:11 GMT
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y4k36hu27-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:11 +0000
Received: from abhmp0012.oracle.com (abhmp0012.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01DEOBY9013318; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:11 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-152.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:24:10 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <158157273498.18108.1561637139623742133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:24:09 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data@ietf.org, Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7EE70561-C534-4C7B-B3A3-D7C3B3542D1E@oracle.com>
References: <158157273498.18108.1561637139623742133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130114
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130114
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/PUMnhjXb98EDcY2prbljODRSeXo>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 13 Feb 2020 14:24:21 -0000
Hi Barry- > On Feb 13, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this document. This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very > easy to resolve: > > — Section 5.2 — > > A sender computes the encoded > value by dividing the buffer size, in octets, by 1024 and subtracting > one from the result. > > Is the buffer size necessarily a multiple of 1024? If so, where is that > specified? If not, what is the encoded value when the buffer size is, say, > 2000? Is it zero? Or one? Good catch! Buffer sizes are not constrained to 1024-byte length alignment. Further, if a sender posts, say, a 2032-byte message to a receiver that uses a 2000-byte buffer, a Receive error occurs that typically results in connection loss. IMO Section 5.2 should instruct the sender to round the actual buffer length down to the nearest 1024-byte multiple before encoding. Would that clarify the issue for you? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Some purely editorial comments: > > — Abstract — > The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the > abstract. (RPC doesn’t need expanding, so once you’ve expanded RDMA-CM, > RPC-over-RDMA should be OK.) > > — Introduction — > Please expand “XDR” on first use. > > Section 7 of the current document > > “of this document” is better, I think. > > — Section 3.2 — > Please expand “RNIC” and “STag”. > > invalidation without the need for additional protocol to be defined. > > Either “an additional protocol” or “additional protocols”. > > — Section 4.1 — > > Realizing these goals > require that implementations of this extension follow the practices > > The subject is “realizing”, which is singular. So, “requires’. Agreed to all. > — Section 5.1 — > > Bits 14 - 8: These bits are reserved and are always zero when the > Version field contains 1. > > In other protocols, leaving it unspecified as to what happens if not all > reserved bits are zero has caused interoperability problems. If you know > that’s not a concern here, that’s fine. Otherwise, it might be good to say > explicitly that either they are ignored on receipt or non-zero bits result in > an error. Gotcha. I can add a sentence that states "When the Version field contains 1, receivers MUST ignore reserved bits". I will address all these comments in a subsequent revision. -- Chuck Lever
- [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4… Barry Leiba via Datatracker
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-n… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-n… Barry Leiba
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-n… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-n… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-n… Barry Leiba