Re: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-08

spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer.shepler@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 B030C126D73; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:45:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 mZ_inPzGUu7d; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22c.google.com (mail-ot0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22c]) (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 BF306127275; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:45:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id h14so5611950otj.5; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:45:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qVEGjBIqHD74UDlYQPkgHVX68PBp+e21+H9dd9oUPa0=; b=a+qcne2HIsBazYEZFQDwm5aepak4YGxe4u7PQiERuSFvP+CbR4/UyXBSF/NbrWuDaw fi+affIMo4XgW/2ErYSrtz3zCDFKl1QdVqffLqlajSMN5B67ES2mV7bFvNHnvQvF+yZY 77xzNEIPwC9Dp71+6mZ5+lnsFpXKGSfvCPPhsV+Lvy8F1IO8gkr9v+PWQTL3RwyenHbE k4yrjjxaWeLqCamOMHiKMkcH6hAV0KAx2XFqLRxRfO6Q0/17cu1924MRQdGusr05LfVS 8eh8d2sPTMiYz3RWOjYX2gDCWgSVvZwTeunI80O0S3RjuL2jqFyGzxMEGlYFiifr5AOi rtDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qVEGjBIqHD74UDlYQPkgHVX68PBp+e21+H9dd9oUPa0=; b=SNYj2tTqqY+EcKmUPT0vb+hEqHNsWO76X3Vnmc8nsgPWg8v6aBTXQc5BFj+RZhXLNU 7968XzzY6VvrG12FU5o4bo4fzp9zcw+r1Q3rlzMsnzL6waT6Zoy+En4JmCc0JV2KTNUc ffXTR5ZtTGTb61AX1HRcAcDNfOtOCvkrY/YLPH5vwQf+UtpMAbX0PMbEfTS5N2+zv9yR havDxTVrs0HtXBPWoQ4Rwy3UM8PhuzYcwPaQinvHpokhZhR5Oj+TWkummTIZPv8D8rDT kxurlgmzfryY8Y4epe2cCCxS9eqiNCuHJZQfBxbHcQ0F2gmN+1NIotrsmCQFBCWToZ0X Dydw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDR/ic1FPXfQa4jnpUzwfhJICxZ1xcvZlaUQPR3EN+v4IjgQ0TW 68qL/99CItCySdeYGhJe9BTxDJeY3ZweRu4XBNQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225myxsmne/KGvopujWLCClIN+8PghpxG9FwLoy/J5JKLFxdux6ZDO/s/EQnjs6/ZT6h7lo28RBbLwf57nMzaV0=
X-Received: by 10.157.52.98 with SMTP id v89mr387000otb.169.1518122709070; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:45:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKKJt-epFo2_iiOfH1hoXzzdDeEcxk8-U4-_bpSgUAP0CvYRTw@mail.gmail.com> <F8150E58-8A4A-433C-BF11-DC11D7E09DE4@primarydata.com> <CADaq8jfSqAYQCFXTJezXVd423sdt1r0njBCaLDp9vQK_KKXwww@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-eUEyy1CbkRn50PjQcSuqs1DSSeLCRuL1BGQ72hNsp91w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-eUEyy1CbkRn50PjQcSuqs1DSSeLCRuL1BGQ72hNsp91w@mail.gmail.com>
From: spencer shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:44:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFt6BamVArvBKoKW_3tt+ERhHmmT2Y_cXyKZHxVvEpATta+YGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types@ietf.org>, "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141584cccbafa0564b97c62"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/S272mIqqftCpyhH66QPlS2Ldg4g>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-08
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:45:15 -0000

Yes, we are ready for last call.

Spencer

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:59 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> I looked at -09, and it seems quite reasonable. Thanks for your help during
> AD Evaluation.
>
> Mr. Spencer (S), are we ready for Last Call?
>
> Spencer (D)
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:38 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > I found myself wondering "unique within what scope?”
> >
> >
> > > The server and stateid type.
> >
> > For v4.1, it's actually unique within the scope of a particlar
> > client-server pair as repeented by
> > a clientid.
> >
> > Section 8.2 of RFC5661 says:
> >
> > The server may assign stateids independently for different clients.
> >
> > A stateid with the same bit pattern for one client may designate an
> >
> > entirely different set of locks for a different client.  The stateid
> >
> > is always interpreted with respect to the client ID associated with
> >
> > the current session.  Stateids apply to all sessions associated with
> >
> > the given client ID, and the client may use a stateid obtained from
> >
> > one session on another session associated with the same client ID.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> >> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dear Authors,
> >> >
> >> > This draft looks quite clean. NFSv4 drafts usually do.
> >> >
> >> > I did make some notes during AD Evaluation, and would like to resolve
> >> them before requesting IETF Last Call.
> >> >
> >> > Please let me know what you think.
> >> >
> >> > Spencer
> >> >
> >> > In this text from the Abstract,
> >> >
> >> >   This document defines the requirements which individual pNFS layout
> >> >    types need to meet in order to work within the parallel NFS (pNFS)
> >> >    framework as defined in RFC5661.  In so doing, it aims to clearly
> >> >    distinguish between requirements for pNFS as a whole and those
> >> >    specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.  The lack of a clear
> >> >    separation between the two set of requirements has been troublesome
> >> >    for those specifying and evaluating new Layout Types.  In this
> >> >    regard, this document effectively updates RFC5661.
> >> >
> >> > I'd suggest dropping "effectively" in the last sentence.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Okay
> >>
> >>
> >> > In this text,
> >> >
> >> >   The concept of layout type has a central role in the definition and
> >> >    implementation of Parallel Network File System (pNFS).  Clients and
> >> >    servers implementing different layout types behave differently in
> >> >    many ways while conforming to the overall pNFS framework defined in
> >> >    [RFC5661] and this document.
> >> >
> >> > I'd suggest adding the reference to [RFC5661] at the end of the first
> >> sentence, since that's where pNFS is defined (right?). The existing
> >> reference to [RFC5661] in the final sentence is fine.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay
> >>
> >>
> >> > In this text,
> >> >
> >> >   As a consequence, new internet drafts (see [FlexFiles] and [Lustre])
> >> >    may struggle to meet the requirements to be a pNFS layout type.
> >> >
> >> > I'd suggest "authors of new specifications" ... "may struggle”