[nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009
James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com> Thu, 05 November 2009 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <jlentini@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89D33A68EC for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:58:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJpdss0hJxwY for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D813A682E for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:58:07 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,687,1249282800"; d="scan'208";a="270262086"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2009 12:58:28 -0800
Received: from jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com (jlentini-linux.hq.netapp.com [10.97.16.21]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id nA5KwRaS028921 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:58:25 -0500
From: James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com>
X-X-Sender: jlentini@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911051557490.11932@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Nov 2009 20:58:08 -0000
FedFS Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 --------------------------------- Attendees --------- Craig Everhart (NetApp) Paul LeMahieu (EMC) James Lentini (NetApp) Renu Tewari (IBM) Robert Thurlow (Sun) Chris Stacey (EMC) Nico Williams (Sun) Minutes ------- + IETF Note Well Agreement This is a reminder that our discussions are governed by the IETF Note Well Agreement. See: http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html We will start each week's meeting with this announcement. + Admin STAT command James re-capped last weeks discussion. We reviewed the concerns about how to report statistics in an implementation independent function. The results of this procedure would be error counters and junction resolution counters. As an aside, Paul envisioned a traceroute-style reporting tool being constructed. Such a tool would be useful when a user told an administrator "I can't get to my data". The tools would be used to determine where the error occurred. It might need to traverse multiple junctions before locating the source of the problem. There command would take the path as input, and trace the path using the current set of FedFS operations. Paul did not think additional operations (beyond the extensions to FEDFS_LOOKUP_FSN described below) would be necessary. We then returned to discussing a STAT command. Craig raised the issue of information leakage and permissions for a command since it would allow the administrator to determine what the fileserver is doing on everyone else's behalf. Rob suggested that if such an operation were added that it be optional to implement. Chris speculated that such a facility might be useful for diagnosing a Federation error. He envisioned a tool that would examine all the fileservers in a namespace and give a yes/no if anyone of them were seeing resolution errors. For each of the fileservers experiencing errors, a second level of detail would be provided on which junctions were failing. We need more information on the use cases for such a facility before determining if it is necessary. [AI] Chris Stacey will write up example use cases for a statistics command. + Admin FEDFS_LOOKUP_FSN resolve parameter We reviewed the updates posted here: http://jlentini.users.sourceforge.net/draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-admin-03bis.txt and diff here: http://jlentini.users.sourceforge.net/draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-admin-rfcdiff.html The first parts of the diff should be ignored. The xml2rfc tool has been updated to place the abstract first in the document. The real changes start on page 6. Craig suggested adding an unstructured text field to the results to indicate the source of a failure. We discussed the NSDB error. There is only one error being proposed without distinction between NSDB node is down, the NSDB service is not listening, the fileserver can't negotiate an LDAP connection, etc. There was consensus that a coarse grained error for failure to establish and end-to-end NSDB connection was all that should be provided. We also discussed reflecting LDAP error codes back through the procedure's results. We agreed that the free form string field that will be added is the appropriate place for this. Rob suggested that a malformed response be added as a fourth type of resolution error. As an aside, we discussed what the fileserver's behavior would be when a junction resolution error occurred when a client was traversing the junction. What should the client see? Should the fileserver wait or return an error? It seemed prudent for the fileserver to return a DELAY error if the problem was transient. For persistent errors the fileserver should indicate a hard error. The admin protocol should return an error on junction resolution failure immediately. This will allow the administrator to diagnose problems immediately. Craig suggested that the resolve parameter be a ternary instead of binary value: 0 = don't resolve, 1 = resolve using cache value, and 2 = resolve using nsdb. We also agreed that a generic catch all for resolution errors would be useful to distinguish a resolution error from SVRFAULT. [AI] James Lentini add malformed response error code, string field to response, generic resolve error code, and make resolve a ternary value. + Admin NSDB Trust Anchor Management Nico proposed TA format and TAMP, pick one as required to implement. We need to discuss this more. [AI] James Lentini to discuss TA management with Nico. + No Meeting Next Week Next week is IETF'76 in Hiroshima. We will not meet next week.
- [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 James Lentini
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 James Lentini
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 11/5/2009 James Lentini