Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues relating to opcode assignments etc.
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 07 November 2014 22:47 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04EF71A039D for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:47:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 oZz17fx4Vdx2 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1841A1A16 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wp4so3310107obc.39 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:47:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AuBeGZWTcCl/xMkFDGmooqszVCdQR8AxZ7vhitLut8A=; b=dKwUMGwzoxGCNL5KjbRUz6IjLNnGEvFq2ZzHRNWUHrWoT+iuE6pn4HSyx2Yrol0iJs LsDnSE5TPDmUX8qK2uoXVqO0OrRrnD5tKObCBUpV9XIQQyeawZsELe37/kpi7EWvLyVW dFsvhypaoF8hDLHmLUHED86PltsBasDdQNzrfv/H6H9xAsJS3IOsES5PsxtfzEgwbNxc bE1PkNR08ThHSkStBCtDJTLLt9uHixxexTPPL+fHlZ3B75DiKwZs9zZk6Kod4isy6Ftp KJZ1DdLfCBH4lTtmBREs1XlxXe/j8kmofeTd5LhlNcX17fmnrh4RLdIKT969PXJ9VKDo p2uw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.67.165 with SMTP id o5mr12199411oet.24.1415400428450; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.226.106 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:47:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEMWVhsXDU8ACBEuPnGfFF_NLB56Sq-hiFJaq=XxUZqxQoaqmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADaq8jcGEHYG8Y9+Lj6GBPhePC6vknPXaW9Yh+tbTJ4+bVxvJg@mail.gmail.com> <20141028160114.GC17213@localhost> <CADaq8je8GyUO2AbaWRshQ+dEagnEKFddYswJKUyUc9Q_pVjkkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEMWVhsXDU8ACBEuPnGfFF_NLB56Sq-hiFJaq=XxUZqxQoaqmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:47:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8je4NPbZB9d9xSeFUSV0a=_zmu8SoZEh2-70Uv_ik2YFAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c31dd8c0ba6c05074c97aa"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/fhrxx3Qwy-yoshvvETf0pejnBeQ
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues relating to opcode assignments etc.
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:47:14 -0000
I've prepared some changes to go into draft-haynes-nfsv4-versioning-02 (or draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-00, if that happens first), that include Benny's suggestion. They are listed below under the heading ''*Changes Proposed*:". In addition to material following up on Benny's suggestion, there are a few other changes/corrections that I noticed going through the -01. To follow up on Tom's original thought, I don't see that there is much regarding this draft that you can call a "controversy". It may be that my idea of what constitutes a "controversy" is conditioned by the political ads I've seen recently, However, even by the politer standards of the IETF, I haven't seen much disagreement about major points. The changes below, and the changes already sent out address minor issues with the current draft. I'm sure that other such issues will come up and be addressed, as we go forward on moving this through the process toward an eventual WGLC. As far as I'm concerned, with these changes and the ones I sent out Oct 24, the document is ready to go forward with as a working-group group document. I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this question. * Changes Proposed: * *The following changes are to section 4:* *Prefix the following material to rule #15 (*Needed to be compatible with *draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2**) :* Other than where explicitly documented in a minor version's specification document, *The following changes are to Section 5.2, currently entitled **Additional Informational Documents* *The existing title and first two paragraphs of the section will be replaced** by the following*: * 5.2 Additional Documents to be Produced*. Additional documents will be required from time to time. These documents will eventually become RFC's (informational or standards track) as described below), but the work of the working group and of implementers developing features will be facilitated by a progression of document drafts that incorporate information about new features that are being developed or have been approved as Proposed Standards. *5.2.1. Minor Version Indexing Document * One document will organize existing material for a minor version undergoing extension so that implementers will not have to scan a large set of feature definition documents or minor version specifications to find information being sought. Successive drafts of this document will serve as an index to the current state of the extensible minor version. Some desirable elements of this indexing document would include: *The first two bulleted items in the bulleted list in this sections are to be deleted.* *The following material should replace the existing last paragraph of the section.* The frequency of updates for this document will be affected by implementer needs and the ability to easily generate document drafts, preferably by automated means. The most desirable situation is one in which a new draft is available soon after each feature reaches the status of a Proposed Standard. * 5.2.2. Consolidated XDR Document* This document will consist of an updated XDR for the protocol as a whole including feature elements from all features and minor versions accepted as Proposed Standards. A new draft should be prepared whenever a new feature within an extensible minor version is accepted as a Proposed Standard. In most cases, feature developers will be using a suitable XDR which can then be reviewed and published. In cases in which multiple features reach Proposed Standard status at approximately the same time, a merge of the XDR changes made by each feature may be necessary. * 5.2.3. XDR Assignment Document* This document will contain consolidated lists of XDR value assignments that are relevant to the protocol extension process. It should contain lists of assignments for: o operation codes (separate lists for forward operations and for callbacks) o attribute numbers o error codes o bits within flag words that have been extended since they were first introduced. o enumeration values for enumerations which have been extended since they were first introduced. For each set of assignments, the individual assignments may be of three types: o permanent assignments associated with a minor version or a feature extension that has achieved Proposed Standard status. These assignments are permanent in that the assigned value will never be re-used. However, a subsequent minor version may define some or all feature elements associated with a feature to be Mandatory to NOT support. o provisional assignments associated with a feature under development (i.e. one which has been approved as a working- group document but has not been approved as a Proposed Standard) Provisional assignments are not are not permanent and the values assigned can be re-used in certain circumstances. In particular, when a feature with provisional assignments is not progressing toward the goal of eventual Proposed Standard status, the working group can judge the feature effort to have been abandoned, allowing the codes formerly provisionally allocated to be reclaimed and reassigned. o definition of individual assignments or ranges reserved for experimental use. A new draft of this document should be produced, whenever: o A minor version or feature specification is accepted as a Proposed Standard. o A new feature is accepted for development and a draft of the corresponding working-group standards-track document is produced o A feature previously accepted for development is abandoned. o The working group decides to make some change in assignments for experimental use. * 5.2.4. Transition of Documents to RFC's* Each of these documents should be published as an RFC soon after the minor version in question ceases to be considered extensible. Typically this will happen when the working group makes the specification for the subsequent minor version into a working group document. Some specifics about the individual documents are listed below: o The most current draft of the indexing document for the minor version would be published as an informational RFC. o The most current draft of the consolidated XDR document should be published as a standards-track RFC. It would update the initial specification of the minor version. o The most recent draft of the XDR assignment document should be published as an informational RFC. Handling of these documents in the event of a post-approval XDR correction is discussed in section 6.1. *The following changes are to Section 6:* *In the second bulleted item, change "to may be used' to "may be used".* *After the first list of bulletted items, add the following new paragraph:* Issued related to the effect of XDR corrections on existing documents, including co-ordination with other minor versions, are discussed in section 6.1. *The following new material goes at the end of the existing section 6:* * 6.1. Documentation of XDR changes* In the event of an XDR correction, as discussed above, some document updates will be required. For the purposes of this discussion we call the minor version for which XDR correction is required minor version X and the minor version on which development is ocurring minor version Y. The following discusses the specific updated documents which could be required. o The specification of the feature in question will have to be updated to explain the issue, how it was fixed, and the compatibility and upgrade strategy. Normally this will require an RFC updating the associated feature specification document. However, in the case of a correction to a feature documented in in a minor version definition document, the RFC will update that document instead. o An updated XDR for minor version X will be produced. o An updated minor version indexing document for minor version X is desirable but not absolutely necessary. o An updated XDR assignment document will be required. It should be based *______________________________**___**__________________________* *______________*
- [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues rel… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… Benny Halevy
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues… Benny Halevy