Re: [nfsv4] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-08: (with COMMENT)

[Christoph Hellwig <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:28:44AM -0700, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> 1) Maybe spell out what RFC5663 is about...?
> OLD:
> "[RFC6688] is unnecessary in the context of the SCSI layout type because
> the new
>    layout type provides mandatory disk access protection as part of the
>    layout type definition."
> NEW
> "pNFS Block Disk Protection [RFC6688] is unnecessary in the context 
>    of the SCSI layout type because the new layout type provides mandatory
> 
>    disk access protection as part of the layout type definition."

Sounds fine.

> 2) Why is this not a MUST?
> "Since SCSI storage devices are generally not capable of enforcing
>    such file-based security, in environments where pNFS clients cannot
>    be trusted to enforce such policies, pNFS SCSI layouts SHOULD NOT be
>    used."

I can change this.

> 3) "Storage devices such as storage arrays can have multiple physical
>    network ports that need not be connected to a common network"
> Should this be network interfaces instead on network ports?

That might be the better terminology, I can change that.

> 
> 4) "The client SHOULD track the number of
>    retries, and if forward progress is not made, the client should
>    abandon the attempt to get a layout and perform READ and WRITE
>    operations by sending them to the server"
> Should the second 'should' also be upper case?
> I believe there are actually more cases (at least in this section) where
> upper case SHOULDs and MAYs could be used. Please check!

I will audit the usage.  This section has been taken almost 1:1 from
RFC5663 and passed there, but updating them will improve the document.