Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 01:57 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@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 D35CC13243A for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CPbWFTjnuDc for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (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 C0F8013242F for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id m88so8862525iod.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:01 -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=klFbLd+NhW2Azd+TrpGbNNRFR95OWggtwjD+SsIVzLg=; b=Vj1064e+UuVVK2wi6yFFDG2C2yEr5LwKzKLGUdMMUN+gLUzNnjE1VVRXEX+8eHOXOe r6q4M/MmKyRdDDvJZ9qthzubWgCiJBdcVzm7lJi+nWUrq5cmKllVDY9lEn4AGmwrmoIa CYnfUCbmzV/ZUvs/auDWfFB3Mor9lTyGTox8BJQ/yDTv9Q0O+cdOXY/EYWkYmd3XsJg7 MGrRmMIZFNYyiT0xG5uzrvLRHonwOp/qQF7jd/PtMNEELscARV2F64+n2blka+HzevBC o2yg04OFfeDi1jizv1j/Iw0oNE4ZmGcP94Ujn2l75nf3LL5m3hZCcWLO846uoCKADlMO LjIg==
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=klFbLd+NhW2Azd+TrpGbNNRFR95OWggtwjD+SsIVzLg=; b=BhC3jSI6gHzI3y5OvNk1W9YAjB9zMOtsS/REH5vGdtDEV9OUCHMnfuchntpQ1v/jV2 Z/Qi5x8GYtSPUmG4C1YAsFL7GUa7yKkQGv9BTWgRHnUDFzl1kNgDs7r0sZwlzjcYb8MW OsF5lepHcB/plA7MOFrknA6nHEEpS1BbE9k6PXxt5NMDAl12hMbw/6/eNugJPTCIcCIc x9ZmGS0duZMVK2Gt85hjzTVmeGAkDs/D3RBNxx9h8sJzVC4Rb96wJ0gVIozTn6TcIJDh 5QZQWV7mmtqC42yOYmQwSViTPPalOYE2J1/E3UZu7jpgY0Z9Dcqv628Qm+H4bndTwzCR B65w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jUhsK96tYxh6+qbyi0lO2w7W1OVh6zpU1HjhiX59iS0GUXgr7X L2MJc4c9x7xc8Br6ZPUbyZ1C6hcT4g==
X-Received: by 10.107.137.15 with SMTP id l15mr107801iod.13.1502848620805; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.142.72 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9EF1F87-F62C-4049-8710-D8B9577A9B44@primarydata.com>
References: <150214681284.12459.7958419961024288184@ietfa.amsl.com> <01E22DE7-123E-4765-908E-AF79FD8E4C5E@primarydata.com> <CADaq8jfVy-9LHPxJz818bLKwg0HSmpGLcR2dEsLkidEHZUShuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6Ba=zox9Cyu--WwGtLpF2MQOEjJppaQvjrL+qsTZv918jig@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jdZ28Wr+FV4MYMgO8T17mtxnypZFk+H+PoMom_nFNiHMQ@mail.gmail.com> <11E1F753-1A14-439A-BE4F-25FF044BA35B@primarydata.com> <CADaq8je8yiZ_mx6UADhy65h_fXXsUH==VEj6+fGYuKN7r_g91A@mail.gmail.com> <C9EF1F87-F62C-4049-8710-D8B9577A9B44@primarydata.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:57:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jcr+Gx1U2i7-HUMizKQEku68-hNmko0N8PeQw88+2=b4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
Cc: Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ed3a631c6d90556d5364d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/zqFwqEygh0yTzu0HSjeTyNviyrA>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 01:57:11 -0000
> The changes in v13 were in response to the WGLC, including the ones to the security. And > while the churn to the document was substantial, the effective changes to the protocol > were not that substantial. I interpreted "if there has been enough change during a last call to warrant another round" as meaning change to the document since that is what we are reviewing. I realize that the protocol has not been changing that much recently, and that is a good thing. > I do not want to see what would effectively be an open ended WGLC that gets reset > every time a review is made. I don't want to see that either, but here we have a WGLC that has been reset because, in response to WGLC comments, you issued a new version with significant changes, in my opinion, with good reason. If that doesn't happen again, there would be no reason for any further resets and subsequent last calls. I know that last call for this document has been going on for quite some time. If you llook at data tracker. it seems that, officially at least, this has been going on for two years. I don't believe that has been because I or anyone else has been asking for constant resets. Regardless of all that, the path forward is clear. We have a document with significant change and it needs to be reviewed. If it can be reviewed and the review comments can be dealt with without major document change, and I don't see why they couldn't be, we can now have the absolutely-final-never-to-be-repeated-and-I-mean-it-last-call. I suggest that you indicate to Spencer that the doument is ready for WGLC, if you think that is the case. The sooner we get this started, the sooner it can be finished. > That sets a precedent I do not want to endorse. I don't see that this sets any precedent. This is the way things have always been done, as Spencer indicated. Asking for a last call does not set a precedent and does not cnstitute any sort of enorsement of anyone or any thing. It is just a way of getting this document a chance to move forward. I'd like to thank you for your important work on this document and on layout-types. I realize it has been frustrating, but, if you are up for it, you can go on to the further experience of dealing with the IESG. Good luck. On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com> wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:19 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wait, I would have held off shipping a v-13 if I had known it reset the > last call. > > It didn't reset anything. However, last call ended on 8/11 and now we all > have to figure out what to do about this document. > > > I sent out v-13 as a courtesy to the reviewers > > OK, thanks. But I'm really unclear what you want the reviewers to do with > it. > > There seems to be no point in continung with the review of -12 as if > nothing has happened. My assumption was that you decided to go with a new > approach to security in -13 and wanted the review to proceed on that basis, > as Spencer indicated should happen given that -13 substantially changed > what was in -12. > > If that isn't right, it would be best if you supply a -14 that has the > document that you would like to get reviewed as the basis for WGLC and if > not tell the working group that the document is now no longer ready for > WGLC review. > > > > > The changes in v13 were in response to the WGLC, including the ones to the > security. And > while the churn to the document was substantial, the effective changes to > the protocol > were not that substantial. > > I do not want to see what would effectively be an open ended WGLC that > gets reset > every time a review is made. That sets a precedent I do not want to > endorse. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 4:00 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is a need to adress the issue of a last call for flex-files-13. >> >> I previously suggested extending the -12 LC to encompass the -13 and >> ending on 8/21, but Spencer on 8/8 responded:. >> >> > Thanks for the suggestion, Dave. However, we will let the timer run on >> the current last call (ends on Friday). >> >> > Once that is complete, we will start another last call on the version >> of the I-D that is available then. >> >> Since that last call ended on 8/11, the version available now is -13.so >> we have to start that new last call. >> >> >> >> Wait, I would have held off shipping a v-13 if I had known it reset the >> last call. >> >> I sent out v-13 as a courtesy to the reviewers. >> >> >> >> >> > Note that this is always the case - if there has been enough change >> during a last call to warrant another round, then we do another last call. >> Not a big deal. >> >> I think it is pretty clear that there has been enough change. If there >> is anyone who disagrees, please speak up.. >> >> The only remaIning issue is the the end date. I previously proposed a >> two-week last call period to enable me to do >> a comprehensive review. Others might want to focus on the security >> changes in -13 but I skipped a comprehensive >> review of -12 because it was always pretty clear there would have to be >> a -13. >> >> Two weeks from today would be 8/29. However, it may be simpler to make >> the end date the following Fridiay, which is 9/1. >> Is Tom and the rest of the working group OK with that end date for the >> -13 WGLC? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:26 PM, spencer shepler < >> spencer.shepler@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion, Dave. However, we will let the timer run on >>> the current last call (ends on Friday). >>> >>> Once that is complete, we will start another last call on the version of >>> the I-D that is available then. >>> >>> Note that this is always the case - if there has been enough change >>> during a last call to warrant another round, then we do another last call. >>> Not a big deal. >>> >>> Spencer >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:16 AM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I can't see reviewing this by 8/11. I think we will need to reset the >>>> WGLC clock. >>>> >>>> I thibk it should be extended to 8/21 to give us two weeks to review >>>> the new draft. Other opinions? >>>> >>>> In any case, Spencer S should announce a new date, so everybody is in >>>> sync. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a result of the earlier reviews in the WGLC and a desire for >>>>> an update by said reviewers. >>>>> >>>>> > On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:00 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> > This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 WG of >>>>> the IETF. >>>>> > >>>>> > Title : Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout >>>>> > Authors : Benny Halevy >>>>> > Thomas Haynes >>>>> > Filename : draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt >>>>> > Pages : 40 >>>>> > Date : 2017-08-07 >>>>> > >>>>> > Abstract: >>>>> > The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between >>>>> > the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage >>>>> > device) for a file. The flexible file layout type is defined in >>>>> this >>>>> > document as an extension to pNFS which allows the use of storage >>>>> > devices in a fashion such that they require only a quite limited >>>>> > degree of interaction with the metadata server, using already >>>>> > existing protocols. Client side mirroring is also added to provide >>>>> > replication of files. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/ >>>>> > >>>>> > There are also htmlized versions available at: >>>>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13 >>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13 >>>>> > >>>>> > A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>> submission >>>>> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>> > >>>>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > nfsv4 mailing list >>>>> > nfsv4@ietf.org >>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nfsv4 mailing list >>>>> nfsv4@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nfsv4 mailing list >>>> nfsv4@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
- [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-1… internet-drafts
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… spencer shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-fil… David Noveck