[nfsv4] Changes in the rfc5661bis effort

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Sun, 19 May 2024 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1948C14F69D; Sun, 19 May 2024 07:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.837
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n3-vzSDm-yRk; Sun, 19 May 2024 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985DFC14F68E; Sun, 19 May 2024 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a8691d724eso9314526d6.0; Sun, 19 May 2024 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1716127837; x=1716732637; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T0FxUNTFcz5hSQlZufOe3Q70K5BVQKMGpbLeU9IL21E=; b=c/VDHNmPwi2mYkTrWa1UaNm/mt1mObBxFjfQAiYRJDVDtSou/xHBFidtIVNAbttezU FLLAUZAXRw+4NlQzJdIQKJT8+V3bQydV89mhByeib6U+g1jkx0oi9QuSMU9DD+HJoFNG bCAKgax9HfniDk2tNWVTzMS1/mwGdlGd+emBqqLp1//AjOsZlVPnyApeUr/QelK7jAE8 AIYTfkv21ePBYs6tyBI4kHes2u4kdVFiObtrA/jR+xPfhhr5HLY2p3YpUy/nrMPJvsyQ oJRYvGwOv/QwJY0d076e0KmmK0le2g1WBBRaBhFtBAlvpxZNyegSF3A5+DCfjRYNQu2y 2Uug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716127837; x=1716732637; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T0FxUNTFcz5hSQlZufOe3Q70K5BVQKMGpbLeU9IL21E=; b=QtYUYaIltnONIgRvhx5fE72j28On3JCBT5kPae0by3/YfgJOBjaHf/a/NotsfY0tu3 wpjeePrILncxKS5O+b0sx+kdaJY8QPIQMkYVCZ251xywAd9IDq2hM7yrhUr2QRtpU9HA Np3waRM0RzzDmminludUm2sDhgkKPKkuGym8v1QexzgZMmjiZ5RbrnLPQICIAhFNYrKX hEhisu4m//zjgp4DeyIIDzdHyHnJvRLWFFQuxrcHYflgESM9BIlJc+PNJgCQUFTr8Ds9 p/v9Ql2B6qweg3na807ha/44yxnJapScy7BlxMBriYhbobZ9gIV/aID6T3yDfJqdhLbs fJYA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUQjGgOqXzhEt8nvp9OV820hKjoUvSWiXq1+qYjJjv+2YuavTC8sYEMY2kyInhczeePhNbQ1RsTHucMXOeMaRETZAcgUA8=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwbF+QTkbWYXCTq0sCIZ7k+BhfjRBG/LpfzBGQqhuHgKNrs6TLn aL9u0BZ7b+oAdpj0bl9UQZHSJELUx67b99RKLoEmjLD5ZVIVr8QMhNrhV9jA6da0xSrOusdsgLX J8wpFL1g2WrcJPgy/Edw0F1VDL6QDkg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPfLiSjXgmwqJL8+ph+9UfExggMtuHBrJ7GHIta+p21PG8fHYFPo0RhWv7/BaUpPhko6WMnYVHYwcsArus9jI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5508:b0:6a0:e84a:1b7d with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a1681532e3mr316549646d6.18.1716127837197; Sun, 19 May 2024 07:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 10:10:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jd4MX3Re8dkyTE0JCBqT3yjyP5SjaP0pFqBqnZ-=QgDxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, nfsv4-chairs <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000002063c20618cf26bc"
X-MailFrom: davenoveck@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-nfsv4.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [nfsv4] Changes in the rfc5661bis effort
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/wt2CTnlq8hvJtiYyESQO3xxnhwg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nfsv4-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nfsv4-leave@ietf.org>

I want people to be aware of some important changes in the rfc5661bis
effort.  I will discuss these in more detail at the 4.21 interim meeting.
 However,, I'm sending this out now because:

   - People who won't attend that meeting should know about this as well.
   - It would be helpful if people who will attend read the
   attachment beforehand.

I recently discovered Section 9 of RFC8178.  It appears that we have the
option, in fixing protocol detects, of extending the protocol just as we do
in extendible minor versions.  Of course, we should not use that option too
freely.  The attachment summarizes the defects we have to deal with,
including the two cases (out of ten defects) where protocol extension is
likely to be needed.  We need to make sure we have a consensus about these.

Some good news to savor:

   - The drafting for most of these (eight out of ten) is done or will be
   done when rfc5661bis-05 is out in a about a week.
   - The option of creating a new *OPTIONAL *attribute for ACL feature
   would let us close out the acl work and complete the bis effort much
   earlier than we had been expecting.   It  requires we decide to limit our
   interoperability-enablement efforts in the v4.1 context to the UNIX ACLs
   subset or something close to it.  I am looking to make that scope decision
   at IETF120.

I'd like people to help by reviewing the existing documents and new ones as
they come out.  I'm aware of the facts that the total size is on the order
of *War and Peace* and that I don't write as well as Tolstoy.  In order to
limit your reading, you can focus on:

   - The defects listed in the attachment.
   - The items discussed in Appendix C of *draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661bis* (-04
   now and -05 later)
   - The consensus items list in various Appendices in *d*
   *raft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security *and *draft-dnoveck-dnoveck-acls*

BTW, diffs with RFC881 are not helpful.  but inter-version diffs of the
same document are often quite helpful.