Re: [nfsv4] rfc5666bis and rpcrdma-bidirection progress update

David Noveck <> Sun, 27 November 2016 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6CC12957B for <>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9GyhjzrKDym6 for <>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1907A129576 for <>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w63so123178012oiw.0 for <>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5Ixoryg4prM17SQ1uMWN3HPyXDrKpacA81aX3yC/YHM=; b=hhah2SzViz1xUOcHUCGNaXxYJvGY8I1mF+sYRmu76o+J6ygBDlny/DzF9FVXyiQtIc LKMJQzidHR1S9FLYkLCUTdGPAcRRBaJKZUP8oWwdEEVW2slV9GdLr3M1mQgxTfv/0Egp uZgXCERX5Hb9v2TDdGlsgVkqnk1hdNkBNKU3yr95CPNQj9Cu53RoPUVd9sg+cC47IAs5 zgNdgcGUOZLJ5xSg90L4QDH7iLOLPMJkmhJBootiu16221t31+cCRRaDhb711KU5ujW6 guOZvH4P122lgYkCUCMa1AxlhVQWzBhC9b1XrJO7nOjXx1LsbOMw6eP9u3ppaKiQySQC 4lRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5Ixoryg4prM17SQ1uMWN3HPyXDrKpacA81aX3yC/YHM=; b=KtQSAZvgTAefB5YSGo9Fmo0BoxjWD4qTT3o+tg6p3KjpTL0vaizlFUx+HiXZ1J18jP u+Z4EoEwN7QeF6Z6LwYMpjIHjc0/K1UPtjaBkgPj96dI2GzG1tozqjyDgMac8kFPjsmW 77JTrSeDNxnc6LL5phEewzuv+YyfWSuwSozdKcetLrAUUx4xuwb2U9ShgysFcQZaPcoA vKX7ac5289pemGRp0toXN+i4UOrEQya5RPUf9PllBesD236E2Dv50a7Af3YVTR7AaZ+6 8otrerpDprmWJQz7ESpjBA5N1XIcRKjNk0Zw7+G62LBPKT027RrLUiVMa/BuiqbD8Th1 Op8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00gx3Z0oeIIV8kv3OHqlW5FTX7sW47X87BkUuEpb6l5g0Z2I8tZ4TqfeniH2ApP1G+AZaUpRXXDnRePXA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u198mr8290609oia.165.1480247730273; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:55:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:55:29 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Chuck Lever <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e574e248432054247081a"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] rfc5666bis and rpcrdma-bidirection progress update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:55:32 -0000

So the review process will not be interrupted.  It will continue at the
same pace as before.

With regard to the characterization of the process as "excruciatingly
sluggish", it does seem that not very much has happened since the working
group reached consensus on  this document on 4/17/2016 (according to the
data tracker history).

However, to be fair, we should note that draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-00 was
submitted on 12/01/2015 and it it took the working group less than a year
to get to the point we are.    It looks likely to me that the whole process
will (cross your fingers) be completed in around 16 months from first
submission.   It is hard to get documents done faster than that within the
IETF process, which is not optimized for speed.

Contrast that with RFC5666 itself which took over five years from -00
submission to RFC publication.  Despite the slow pace of the process, it
appears that the document did not get the kind of review it needed before
publication, making rfc5666bis necessary. I'd like to thank the authors for
persevering in the effort to provide NFS with an RDMA-based transport.

If we want to improve the process, and I believe we should, we need to
focus on review quality/adequacy as well as the pace of the process.