Re: [nfsv4] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 20 February 2020 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 62F3612086B; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 1NH3mhY3oGNO; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 852F012086A; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01K45eLq014379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:05:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:40 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>, beepee@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200220040540.GA97652@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158216848908.17754.6609131313720933956.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <158216848908.17754.6609131313720933956.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Q8dq7U4OkE-bo7pI3vIuEtggox8>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with 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, 20 Feb 2020 04:05:55 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:14:49PM -0800, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: No Objection
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you
> are using division by 1024, I think the appropriate range needs to be
> 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft.

I'm not sure there's really much of an issue there; the stated procedure
(round-tripping through the encoding and decoding processes) seems to have
the effect of rounding down to the next multiple of 1024 bytes, which might
waste a little space but should produce safe operation.  Furthermore, it
can't reduce the buffer size below the current default value.

(That said, I don't object to the diff that was proposed in response to
Barry.)

-Ben