[nfsv4] Re: Consensus call on normative language change - draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec

[Chris Inacio <[e-mail]>]

All,

This consensus call is now closed.  Although response was relatively low, all comments are in support for the normative language change.  (Including verbal responses at the interim meeting.) Without any disagreement I’m forwarding a positive consensus back to the AD for publication.

Thanks
NFSv4 Chairs



> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:46 AM, Chris Inacio <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I have read through the changes, and I think they are fine.  
> 
> It would be really helpful it some others commented on list.
> 
> Thanks
> Chris
> 
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Chris Inacio <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> As draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec has gone through final reviews towards publications some edits have been made.  We would like a quick consensus call on, in particular, the normative change made in the draft.  In particular, please check section 2.2 (the diff happened from version 02 to 03 if you want to use the datatracker diff tools and the latest is 04).*  I’m posting the section 2.2 text here, the important point being a change of text from “will most likely” to “MUST”:
>> 
>> 
>> Version 02 section 2.2 Version Mistmatch Considerations:
>> 
>>> The metadata server has no expectations for the client to use this
>>> new functionality. Therefore, if the client does not use it, the
>>> metadata server will function normally.
>>> 
>>> If the client does use the new functionality and the metadata server
>>> does not support it, then the metadata server will most likely reply
>>> with a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID to the LAYOUTRETURN. If the client
>>> detects a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID error in this scenario, it should fall
>>> back to the old behavior of not reporting errors.
>>> 
>> 
>> Version 04 section 2.2 Version Mismatch Considerations:
>> 
>>> The metadata server has no expectations for the client to use this
>>> new functionality. Therefore, if the client does not use it, the
>>> metadata server will function normally.
>>> 
>>> If the client does use the new functionality and the metadata server
>>> does not support it, then the metadata server MUST reply with a
>>> NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID to the LAYOUTRETURN. If the client detects a
>>> NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID error in this scenario, it should fall back to
>>> the old behavior of not reporting errors.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please respond to the list if you are in agreement or disagreement with this normative change.  The chairs will close this consensus call on 5-Dec-2024.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> NFSv4 Chairs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> * - if you want to diff 02 to 04 you can in the datatracker by going here, the document history, from which you can diff between any versions of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec/history/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>