Re: [nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 May 2017 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 55091129ACC; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dc5ePeL8697d; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (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 884FA129AAA; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 187so3076465ybg.0; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8b8ZDlxJPwoEG7ckwQ5muV5MiSzWlgsSNpqs3d0dSZo=; b=GlaxloAzGfbaTlnr8rPk5CImRGMumbhUg+T9Eo4jIa7+d1xNiDUO5GErV+w05GTDES r5cR+7kESaavLnIOn0TjH3nGSGh1J64fwLxuMKWGl19OWRpwKpGwGOZehv9MghSkQeCC CyjUHwnW1+soPKWcbt+WZiGsUN2EBCv+4a0WKMbxqU3EWCw4amwvqDH/6KHv1ambblUm J1B2w+xFj6p7z6+7wRxaiAdSBH/0BOfPh/02ilBuPtVFk9yACFTXqYXOI06wOJ0O7Or5 nWqJI/6jA5y9DaQfhH8gEDmyE/FS8u0vziv7SftGRHrttAlXIv8f2yxUBamViJZvosA3 186w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8b8ZDlxJPwoEG7ckwQ5muV5MiSzWlgsSNpqs3d0dSZo=; b=JcfHxf8zlJT9II7xveXu2OaXmcEor4kr1LOcANLoRGkJ03ZS0dOW3tVb3L0a1mnJN/ xm6Q5VUT4GdKCRhoaQ6J8+mdEHH10B1fA+Ke3p+dsz9wV32Wb1tBYfdev15zvxP9qtYY w+3CEvzSXmxIhq3CiGaD/BXmsV0Jw85iBpNaqsTrKv44/cwSvy/o4oGsGn99/1am+gOw uxrcstwUjbfKYX7h3Wpjb8ipgzqyAQh5bqiJD8fj37jvZqXrwiot+9o0jkWyPA3knusD QqVsDNVwL8hACyBCC46FITrQzRQyEr7NMPUfKULpVREtLMFc+8BxOARLghXxFy9eCtXD MnHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBLBUn3mGEAUyaZoiq0RjM+HbtIjcteODW3F/Uj523K89Aaqd3P Litmnhkgs/cHAnJMUmkqp+PWSwyBLw==
X-Received: by 10.37.31.195 with SMTP id f186mr37032242ybf.25.1495812267600; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.195.194 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-c=K-V0OPX3gk1bFGG9qwKTYuULn-ANd=7=fy=sZ5r_mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149459980428.13464.2287524739238339362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1494602246.10434.3.camel@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-c=K-V0OPX3gk1bFGG9qwKTYuULn-ANd=7=fy=sZ5r_mA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:24:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fzBMPAcvubV7EecOfQLM_QLBKbc3uK_gc1dH=tU=nTPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143e3bedc728105506eee40"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/yFXujIJr0P4060yCSd5x4VpgxZE>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 26 May 2017 15:24:30 -0000

Dear NFSv4,

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Dear -versioning- folk,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 07:36 -0700, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> >
>> > I did have one question that came up during AD Evaluation that I
>> > wanted
>> > to mention.
>> >
>> > The first two drafts that used this mechanism (umask and xattrs) used
>> > two
>> > different idioms for discovering support. The xaddrs draft defines an
>> > xaddr_support attribute, while umask does not.
>> >
>> > In conversations with the working group, the reasoning was that
>> > xattrs
>> > defines a number of operations, so discovering that the complete
>> > mechanism is supported before you start trying to use the attributes
>> > makes sense, while umask defines only one attribute, and for any
>> > attribute, you can find out if it is supported within a given file
>> > system
>> > by interrogating the appropriate bit position in the REQUIRED
>> > attribute
>> > supported_attrs, so there is no advantage to adding a umask_support
>> > attribute.
>> >
>> > That all made perfect sense to me, but the explanation was helpful
>> > enough
>> > to me that I wonder if it's worth a sentence or two, pointing out
>> > that
>> > some protocol designers may choose one idiom, while other protocol
>> > designers choose the other, and saying that's not a problem.
>> >
>>
>> It's an extra mechanism that could be a convenience, but is not
>> something that a client can or should rely on. The only reliable
>> mechanism for verifying that the feature is available is to try it, and
>> handle the resulting NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP and/or NFS4ERR_OP_ILLEGAL error.
>>
>> This is how the Linux client handles all the other NFSv4.x optional
>> features as well.
>
>
> This draft was approved on today's telechat, but the secretariat is
> holding off sending the approval announcement until I let them know that
> all the comments have been addressed.
>
> It looked like David had a plan for this specific comment on idioms for
> detecting support, and Trond had a response, so if others have thoughts
> that would affect the text that appears in the RFC, it would be great to
> hear that, Real Soon Now.
>

David has submitted a -10 version of this draft, that does not discuss
idioms about detecting support (that I can find).

I don't think that's a problem for this document, so I won't hold this
document up. I would, of course, appreciate the working group thinking
about comments in this thread, and discussing whether it would be helpful
to say something in a future draft (or, potentially, a revision to the RFC
this draft will become).

And thanks for the explanations.

Spencer

>
> Thanks!
>
> Spencer (D)
>