Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: (with COMMENT)
Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com> Sat, 23 January 2016 00:19 UTC
Return-Path: <thomas.haynes@primarydata.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 31B061B2D93 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 jJFG0IcH3OLs for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFDE81B2D8E for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q63so51419017pfb.1 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=primarydata-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=MCWPvFR2vcjuWASLC1ZNhkn8rK/pW40mhCOs+tr/XGk=; b=O8DdEi1hICahfQ1ZDR4liA+H2rt96zL/inOGcsFBGJVQeS30bAr7+Khlblg22q2B8a RYG2BC/bMVgvCCYUhMFrPrhW4Czd2BI3yxfMrUApdp+loMZurmuJ8/MfaJS+eIoihV8A 0D1nvU0lT2aocCT+xQ36slc7J+3iZNNVmbosudSHwG3RwtvTwkVjVOGWPWe+ToHGp3B4 5BjDsqPwEoMhQ5IhfNb1tapmQhpgc8Xol2O743HTkSjxPqjoqL/Ucz+optfuOcqUGbxI TiCn06xWwy4ZOsVCS6mKpSrzNu3hZpU8o7ayx/RrpyF0RpuJARXUVBG1QXEM9mbtkMX0 nh9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=MCWPvFR2vcjuWASLC1ZNhkn8rK/pW40mhCOs+tr/XGk=; b=JVBViTOw7p5D9irk1AYXKHOXV15H0egPkqO+61N+CzaFhQ+h1DOSaKKnryBhG4PcMf e/uRjt6+Pm5UbdLKq79ndlqQP5bDd9We6hC0GhwiOXzoRvxKyq4ewT9jKhs35iGgHmJ/ HTA8oY22KeprGkmxaKAAgbqTRAwWDh4X2zHqqkPjMqarjYfLBKArPa1nCO+4QPsGLkd9 SK5mUIpMa+SEpx5NDmjFOxQj2wHJkhlmZWgJ7a7msRp7jpjwYqKjPPmqhHXZq8T55cGt nECSYwe4z9iUe+Q/QzLyAQ2xrNkH/ETGrvMfziOgYiPQjxrHzCirjOKb4eYTT13ul0tZ GF0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTVzeucFC8H/1yliqwUvrTHTRc318Hnngi9V9UyOAfbl0EvNREgxMjbe0S4HfPg5Qg7
X-Received: by 10.98.9.147 with SMTP id 19mr8416149pfj.163.1453508371364; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kinslayer.corp.primarydata.com (63-157-6-18.dia.static.qwest.net. [63.157.6.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b28sm12208141pfd.24.2016.01.22.16.19.30 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1D485A65-AEA9-4DFE-8043-E0814E14AFE5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jcaRa=4KuCXifYJ4p6BBVz0uXYTQz6rakSgwOMeEj3N6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:19:29 -0800
Message-Id: <7B789B89-C54E-4AF2-AF00-BA617DDBB2A7@primarydata.com>
References: <20160120235314.21900.95567.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADaq8jcaRa=4KuCXifYJ4p6BBVz0uXYTQz6rakSgwOMeEj3N6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/wv9GsryytC77QMsu-cPQ5BH8ijs>
Cc: "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: (with COMMENT)
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: <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: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 00:19:35 -0000
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:46 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote: > > Regarding: > > This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol as extensions to > the specifications of NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1. Those specifications > remain current and form the basis for the additions defined > herein. It is necessary to implement those before adding > NFSv4.2 to the implementation. > > I'd like to propose the following alternate text: > > This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol as a set of extensions to > the specification for NFSv4.1. That specification remains current and > forms the basis for the additions defined herein. In addition, the specfication > for NFSv4.0 remains current as well. > > It is necessary to implement all the REQUIRED features of NFSv4.1 before > adding NFSv4.2 features to the implementation. Taken > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org <mailto:barryleiba@computer.org>> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2/> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I appear to be in the minority here, in that I *did* understand this > document's place relative to 4.0, and 4.1. Still, I agree that > clarifying that is really important, and I'll suggest a specific > clarification in Section 1.1): > > OLD > This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol. With respect to > NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, this document does not: > NEW > This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol as extensions to > the specifications of NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1. Those specifications > remain current and form the basis for the additions defined > herein. It is necessary to implement those before adding > NFSv4.2 to the implementation. > > With respect to NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, this document does not: > END > > -- Section 1.2 -- > > A major goal of the design of NFSv4.2 is to take common local file > system features and offer them remotely. > > This sounds like it means to be a change in goals relative to 4.0 and > 4.1. I think it would fit better to say it this way, and would add to > the clarification above: > > NEW > A major goal of the enhancements provided in NFSv4.2 is to take > common local file system features that have not been available > through earlier versions of NFS, and to offer them remotely. > END > > -- Section 6.1 -- > > Hole: A byte range within a Sparse file that contains regions of all > zeroes. A hole might or might not have space allocated or > reserved to it. > > I'm wondering about the "regions of" here: If I have a byte range that > contains two regions of all zeroes and something that's not all zeroes in > between those two regions, I do not have a (single) hole, do I? Why does > this say "regions of"? > > And a question: Is there any disctinction between a byte-range within a > sparse file that happens to contain all zeroes... and one that is > recorded in metadata as being all zeroes? Can some file systems write a > region of zeroes without "knowing" that they have created a hole? Does > this distinction matter here? > > -- Section 6.2.1 -- > > Note that as the client has no a priori > knowledge of whether a hole is present or not > > (No need to respond to this; take it or leave it as you please.) I have > a general preference for avoiding Latin terms, as they're not properly > understood by everyone. In this case, too, "a priori" has a connotation > that goes beyond the literal Latin translation. I think it'd be better > to word this as "Because the client does not know in advance whether a > hole is present or not". > > READ_PLUS extends the response with a new arm representing holes to > avoid returning data for portions of the file which are initialized > to zero and may or may not contain a backing store. Returning data > blocks of uninitialized data wastes computational and network > resources, thus reducing performance. > > It wouldn't be "uninitialized" data, would it? It'd be zeroes. I think > you might just want to say "Returning actual data blocks corresponding to > holes", yes? > > By contrast, if a READ_PLUS occurs in the middle of a hole, > the server can send back a range which starts before the offset and > extends past the range. > > I'm not sure how a range can extend past itself ("a range which ... > extends past the range"). I think you just want to say "a range > representing the hole." > > -- Section 6.2.2 -- > > DEALLOCATE can be used to hole punch, which allows the client to > avoid the transfer of a repetitive pattern of zeros across the > network. > > This is the first time you've mentioned DEALLOCATE where I think I > understand that it is a way of doing a WRITE wherein the client sends the > representation of a hole to the server, rather than actually doing a > WRITE. (I had previously thought it was used to tell the server to undo > an ALLOCATE, but it now seems that they are related things, but are not > duals.) > > You might want to be more clear about this here, especially if what I say > in the previous paragraph is wrong. > > -- Section 7 -- > > Lesser space MAY be > consumed for backups after block deallocation. > > I don't think this is a proper 2119 MAY; it sounds like a statement of > fact, not a protocol option. > > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@ietf.org <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4> >
- [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Barry Leiba
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-i… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-i… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-i… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-i… Barry Leiba