Re: [nfsv4] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5661 (5982)

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 14 February 2020 11:12 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 CA8FD120639 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:12:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Gy_MbwPfeekA for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:12:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 0361B1200D8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:12:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id r21so10783707edq.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:12:32 -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=yXjVfEEnUKQTpaf2kX8r4AjmnkNYkCn4Xrsl0zohI2s=; b=BdHj6ATYdo6VJdYP7yM+M8jxGUT2hlGiRO+3kFMtltzcgdQ+5316Vfx1w/Pn9tm1x2 7Z1exmTHGF3N4wU9YKMBtrYoyEJQgNU+w47RC4/jdvbmoqkgpxxlUbitHBBiMDJsHITt lsjfQJLOkB/BqBEpPC87q6VgLI8w1eiYNgUr6Z+6SivEDqVOzswDOxUmpaicCMd9Bhiq FfQB51WnFNwiHWGGxuJEgeIbyL4ZtQ9P05ojAdkPICgtlQJfXlMzZ+EMYyUfz2NeJuDy uDyK6io+Qk1mWRvMaQatxJFpk5KcgCRT9zscRqwB8WDY17TaScfr0L/R8TtrQ05eceTK IpiA==
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=yXjVfEEnUKQTpaf2kX8r4AjmnkNYkCn4Xrsl0zohI2s=; b=U7peOOF579+jdGrMXQBL9tDy1l8myzMbadoyIc2ZY0bkXKxRpZVrHLBDQbA0vrksbB ESQLVIbhGq27ve+tWkvChGAmxL0dtQeunUqvXTFVMC5sfPJzbLR4RxtyAvQlHUduup2I jfMjExfCGvUlbZOkm6nF9WzXPLOFRw9QjRETym5AsASUidF/6N3qIPhwO79qYsUpLdj6 M8+U9ld6UbLHIcpTb0ZrlXKuvbqYzzGevAizoiRffUgTEB9o/PpAGuF9L8lIYIQlfOn+ t1+9DepSMdsVNelJ8OmLDWwrttB808hfKT4soDtKju02DtnquigKfCXbHRFeM8oVB7Fu q49Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUlnbq988mxNshJvh2w8dvlei7UY2TJ0OgXWsPQIKrEv3MIm8c/ SNnMM9bdD6du5o/bmSKv73jYr/tk+OVfl8Uk+og=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUnfambz/Jm/WXOieaL5oT5pFvBXf5jHF/wxPcFD2NOBI+U9PU4WScdMd232OC6WqgIBjc/tbERulMsUCYef0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7a07:: with SMTP id d7mr2556185ejo.176.1581678751461; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:12:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200213155737.DAC4FF406F2@rfc-editor.org> <CAABAsM6uUjrvOauaihF-h9jzXAF_egudn1qdOEThnq5tQfpAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAABAsM6uUjrvOauaihF-h9jzXAF_egudn1qdOEThnq5tQfpAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:12:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdizpjMFnu7ESEjJcQmzgA5Ky_fAHo697pGVanEVEdzcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, shepler@storspeed.com, Michael R Eisler <mike@eisler.com>, Dave Noveck <dnoveck@netapp.com>, ietf@kuehlewind.net, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002135e8059e874889"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/S4VOjUGmM4rdPCJsEdpHeh4XVao>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5661 (5982)
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:12:35 -0000

>
> The XID requirement is a new one,


It is newly mentioned in rfc5661 but it is not a new requirement, since it
is inherent on the fact that nfsv4 is layered on top of RPC.

and is significant on the wire
> change for clients.


Are there really clients that don't bother to generate unique XID's? I
hadn't heard of them.

It puts us back in the distasteful situation we
> had in NFSv3 where we mix RPC level and NFS level semantics.


Distasteful or not, nfsv4.1 is layered on top of RPC and that is unlikely
to change.

In
> particular it is problematic in the multi-path failover case, where we
> want to replay the NFS COMPOUND on a different RPC transport after the
> first path failed:


I believe that means we have to reject this erratta report. I'll do that.

XIDs are per-transport in the Linux client
>

They are per-transport everywhere.

>
> _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > nfsv4@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>