[nfsv4] NFS, RPC/RDMA Internet Drafts ready for IESG
Spencer Shepler <Spencer.Shepler@Sun.COM> Wed, 19 September 2007 22:26 UTC
Return-path: <nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IY7zq-0002Vi-Tp; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:26:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IY7zp-0002Vb-CN for nfsv4@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:26:13 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IY7zh-0000RM-W9 for nfsv4@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:26:13 -0400
Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l8JMPvAR009579 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:25:57 GMT
Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JOM00501Z91HT00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Spencer.Shepler@Sun.COM) for nfsv4@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:25:57 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.5] (adsl-71-145-197-45.dsl.austtx.sbcglobal.net [71.145.197.45]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JOM00171ZMPE4D0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:25:39 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:26:05 -0500
From: Spencer Shepler <Spencer.Shepler@Sun.COM>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Message-id: <97F02211-6E02-48CD-AE3F-D11590CF6906@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: a3f7094ccc62748c06b21fcf44c073ee
Cc: Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: [nfsv4] NFS, RPC/RDMA Internet Drafts ready for IESG
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org
Lars, With the completion of working group last call for these documents: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfs-rdma-problem-statement-07.txt draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-06.txt The NFSv4 Working Group is requesting of the IESG that they be published as RFCs. The following, as per RFC4858, provides the detail of shepherding the documents forward. ------------------------------------------------------------------ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed the documents and believes they are ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The documents have been reviewed via two working group last calls: WG last call on Aug 17, 2006 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg03706.html WG last call on May 8th, 2007 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg04322.html And the documents have received external review as well. There are no remaining concerns related to depth or breadth of the reviews that have occurred. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns exist. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No such concerns exist. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? There is broad consensus within the NFS and RPC communities in this work. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? No. If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Not applicable. Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? Yes. If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. RFC1094 "NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification" RFC1813 "NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification" (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? Yes. Yes. If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Not Applicable. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Document Announcement Write-Up for: "NFS RDMA Problem Statement" draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfs-rdma-problem-statement-07.txt --------------------------------------------------------------- Technical Summary Motivation for the application of Remote Direct Memory Access to the NFS protocols is described. NFS implementations historically incur significant overhead due to data copies on end-host systems, as well as other processing overhead. The potential benefits of RDMA to these implementations are explored, and the reasons why RDMA is especially well-suited to NFS and network file protocols in general are evaluated. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality As the Informative References demonstrate, this work has drawn on a variety of work in academia and industry and appropriately motivates the appropriate use of RDMA technologies for protocols such as NFS. Document Announcement Write-Up for: "NFS Direct Data Placement" draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt -and- "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC" draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-06.txt --------------------------------------------------------------- Technical Summary These documents specify a protocol for ONC RPC operation over RDMA transports (such as RDDP), and a binding of NFS atop this protocol. The RPC/RDMA protocol supports RDMA as a new transport for ONC RPC. The RDMA transport binding conveys the benefits of efficient, bulk data transport over high speed networks, while providing for minimal change to RPC applications and with no required revision of the application RPC protocol (such as NFS), or the RPC protocol itself. An NFS binding atop the RDMA transport for ONC RPC then provides direct data placement for NFS data. Direct data placement not only reduces the amount of data that needs to be copied in an NFS call, but allows much of the data movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. Bindings of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA transport are defined. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality In support of this protocol definition, a variety of prototyping efforts have occurred in both Linux and OpenSolaris operating environments. At this point, there exist interoperable NFS client and server implementations for both Linux and OpenSolaris. _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
- [nfsv4] NFS, RPC/RDMA Internet Drafts ready for I… Spencer Shepler