Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212)
Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 21:00 UTC
Return-Path: <arusso@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6424F3A102D; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 z388D87feRpG; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 413ED3A0D12; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5B43C24AF; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYXFFKWfNyaH; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:602:8501:8b10:6cfd:c7ab:e2cb:a5d8] (unknown [IPv6:2601:602:8501:8b10:6cfd:c7ab:e2cb:a5d8]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46A1B3C24AE; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR06MB559720AE5B2EB67CFD9AFFC4E12C0@MN2PR06MB5597.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 13:59:56 -0700
Cc: "loghyr@primarydata.com" <loghyr@primarydata.com>, "shepler@storspeed.com" <shepler@storspeed.com>, "mike@eisler.com" <mike@eisler.com>, "magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8C79ECB1-D63D-4D8B-84AB-AC3C4EC974A9@amsl.com>
References: <20200903112436.4E681F40780@rfc-editor.org> <MN2PR06MB559720AE5B2EB67CFD9AFFC4E12C0@MN2PR06MB5597.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Noveck, David" <David.Noveck@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/ocL4aFNQMWWRXVlNNaAmKQgTGFA>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Sep 2020 21:00:08 -0000
Re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5212 FYI, the status has been changed to "Held for Document Update" per a request from Magnus Westerlund. RFC Editor/ar > On Sep 3, 2020, at 5:33 AM, Noveck, David <David.Noveck@netapp.com> wrote: > > The explanatory text, with I agree with, indicates why this > Should be held over for update, presumably in rf5661bis. However the subject line says "rejected" and I don't understand why. > > -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 7:25 AM > To: loghyr@primarydata.com; shepler@storspeed.com; mike@eisler.com; Noveck, David <David.Noveck@netapp.com> > Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; iesg@ietf.org; nfsv4@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) > > NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5661, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5212 > > -------------------------------------- > Status: Rejected > Type: Technical > > Reported by: NFS4ERR_ROFS is not a valid error code for LAYOUTGET <loghyr@primarydata.com> Date Reported: 2017-12-19 Rejected by: Magnus Westerlund (IESG) > > Section: 15.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > | LAYOUTGET | NFS4ERR_ACCESS, NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, | > | | NFS4ERR_BADIOMODE, NFS4ERR_BADLAYOUT, | > | | NFS4ERR_BADXDR, NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, | > | | NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION, NFS4ERR_DELAY, | > | | NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_DQUOT, | > | | NFS4ERR_FHEXPIRED, NFS4ERR_GRACE, | > | | NFS4ERR_INVAL, NFS4ERR_IO, | > | | NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER, | > | | NFS4ERR_LAYOUTUNAVAILABLE, NFS4ERR_LOCKED, | > | | NFS4ERR_MOVED, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE, | > | | NFS4ERR_NOSPC, NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP, | > | | NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_OPENMODE, | > | | NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, | > | | NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT, | > | | NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG, | > | | NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG_TO_CACHE, | > | | NFS4ERR_REQ_TOO_BIG, | > | | NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, | > | | NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT, NFS4ERR_STALE, | > | | NFS4ERR_TOOSMALL, NFS4ERR_TOO_MANY_OPS, | > | | NFS4ERR_UNKNOWN_LAYOUTTYPE, | > | | NFS4ERR_WRONG_TYPE | > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > | LAYOUTGET | NFS4ERR_ACCESS, NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, | > | | NFS4ERR_BADIOMODE, NFS4ERR_BADLAYOUT, | > | | NFS4ERR_BADXDR, NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, | > | | NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION, NFS4ERR_DELAY, | > | | NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_DQUOT, | > | | NFS4ERR_FHEXPIRED, NFS4ERR_GRACE, | > | | NFS4ERR_INVAL, NFS4ERR_IO, | > | | NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER, | > | | NFS4ERR_LAYOUTUNAVAILABLE, NFS4ERR_LOCKED, | > | | NFS4ERR_MOVED, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE, | > | | NFS4ERR_NOSPC, NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP, | > | | NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_OPENMODE, | > | | NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, | > | | NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT, | > | | NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG, | > | | NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG_TO_CACHE, | > | | NFS4ERR_REQ_TOO_BIG, | > | | NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, NFS4ERR_ROFS, | > | | NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT, NFS4ERR_STALE, | > | | NFS4ERR_TOOSMALL, NFS4ERR_TOO_MANY_OPS, | > | | NFS4ERR_UNKNOWN_LAYOUTTYPE, | > | | NFS4ERR_WRONG_TYPE | > > > Notes > ----- > It could be argued that the OPEN takes care of a NFS4ERR_ROFS for a LAYOUTGET of a LAYOUTIOMODE4_RW, but that does not explain why WRITE is allowed to return a NFS4ERR_ROFS. > > With the Flex File Layout Type, the storage device depends on the metadata server enforcing the read-only filesystem semantics. An NFSv3 WRITE to the storage device might be accepted even though the filesystem might be RO. Further, if a snapshot is taken, the storage device might not be aware of the fact that a data file is in a snapshot. > > Currently, if the underlying filesystem determines that the LAYOUTGET for a LAYOUTIOMODE4_RW is going to return NFS4ERR_ROFS, to be spec compliant, it MUST convert the error code to NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT. The client may then decide to perform IO through the metadata server with NFSv4 WRITE calls, which will in turn get a NFS4ERR_ROFS error. This change pushes the responsibility to be on the LAYOUTGET and allows the client to inform the application of an error earlier. > > AD Comments: > This topic requires WG discussion and establishment of consensus. Thus for future document update. > > --VERIFIER NOTES-- > This topic requires WG discussion and establishment of consensus. Thus for future document update. > > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5661 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-29) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol > Publication Date : January 2010 > Author(s) : S. Shepler, Ed., M. Eisler, Ed., D. Noveck, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Network File System Version 4 > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG
- [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) RFC Errata System
- Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [nfsv4] [Errata Rejected] RFC5661 (5212) Alice Russo