Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout
draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-19
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-08-20
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-08-07
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-08-02
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2018-07-16
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from REF |
2018-07-13
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2018-05-09
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-05-08
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-05-08
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-05-08
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-05-08
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-05-08
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-05-08
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-05-03
|
19 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS |
2018-05-03
|
19 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-05-03
|
19 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-19.txt |
2018-05-03
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-03
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Thomas Haynes , Benny Halevy |
2018-05-03
|
19 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-25
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-04-25
|
18 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-18.txt |
2018-04-25
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-25
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Thomas Haynes , Benny Halevy |
2018-04-25
|
18 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-14
|
17 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the SecDir review and sorry I didn't notice when you posted a revision a while back! |
2018-03-14
|
17 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-03-02
|
17 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-02-27
|
17 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-17.txt |
2018-02-27
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-27
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-02-27
|
17 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-25
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-01-25
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2018-01-25
|
16 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-16.txt |
2018-01-25
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-25
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2018-01-25
|
16 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] I concur with Kathleen's discuss. To put a finer point on it, I think the security considerations section here needs to really clearly … [Ballot discuss] I concur with Kathleen's discuss. To put a finer point on it, I think the security considerations section here needs to really clearly state what the security properties of this design are and how they differ from existing NFS. That's not true yes. |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] - I'm a bit confused on whether the client can tell which model the server is using. I see: An implementation can … [Ballot comment] - I'm a bit confused on whether the client can tell which model the server is using. I see: An implementation can always be deployed as a loosely coupled model. There is however no way for a storage device to indicate over a NFS protocol that it can definitively participate in a tightly coupled model: But then there is a flag that you use to indicate you are tightly coupled. So I'm confused. - I note that some of your PDUs have /// in front and some do not. E.g., Section 5. Is that a bug. - S 2.2. " Note: it is recommended to implement common access control methods at" Do you want RECOMMENDED. |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for your response to the SecDir review. I see the proposed changes have not been integrated yet. This discuss will be resolved … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for your response to the SecDir review. I see the proposed changes have not been integrated yet. This discuss will be resolved when the SecDir review changes have been included. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HKdT2KjnWJFmzEPxlGcNH0OnUDg |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-01-24
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-01-23
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -1.2: Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. There are several instances of lower case keywords. |
2018-01-23
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-01-23
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] I understand that v16 is foreseen based on Linda Dunbar's OPS DIR review. |
2018-01-23
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2018-01-22
|
15 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thanks for responding to Linda Dunbar's comments. I'm not an NFS person in any way, so much of the document was over my … [Ballot comment] Thanks for responding to Linda Dunbar's comments. I'm not an NFS person in any way, so much of the document was over my head. On an editorial note, I found the way the definitions were written to be interesting (the term, and then the "is a ...") - this is no way a criticism, I just found it unusual (and actually quite engaging, I might steal that!) Also, props on the embedding of the XDR; I hadn't seen that particular way (the ` grep "^ *///" | sed 's?^ */// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??' ` ) of embedding code in a draft -- this seems to be fairly popular in the NFS WG (which is probably why I hadn't seen it. :-) |
2018-01-22
|
15 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-01-22
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-01-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-01-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
2018-01-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-01-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-01-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-01-16
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-01-12
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-12
|
15 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the pNFS Layout Types Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pnfs-layout-types/ a single, new layout type is to be registered as follows: Layout Type Name: LAYOUT4_FLEX_FILES Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] RFC: [ RFC-to-be ] How: L Minor Versions: 1 IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 0x00000004 for this new registration. Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document is approved for publication as an RFC. Second, in the NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/nfsv4-recallable-object-types/ two new object types are to be registered: Recallable Object Type Name: RCA4_TYPE_MASK_FF_LAYOUT_MIN Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] RFC: [ RFC-to-be ] How: L Minor Versions: 1 Recallable Object Type Name: RCA4_TYPE_MASK_FF_LAYOUT_MAX Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] RFC: [ RFC-to-be ] How: L Minor Versions: 1 IANA notes that the authors have suggested values 16 and 17 for these oject types. Because this registry also requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Third, also in the NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/nfsv4-recallable-object-types/ the authors request that two additional new object types are to be registered: Recallable Object Type Name: RCA4_TYPE_MASK_OTHER_LAYOUT_MIN Value: 12 RFC: [ RFC5661 ] How: L Minor Versions: 1 Recallable Object Type Name: RCA4_TYPE_MASK_OTHER_LAYOUT_MAX Value: 15 RFC: [ RFC5661 ] How: L Minor Versions: 1 IANA Question --> In the NFSv4 Recallable Object Types Registry, these values are currently marked "Reserved for Private Use" [ RFC8126 ]. Is it the author's intention to change the registration rules for these two values and move them from Private Use to the public registrations described above? Because this registry also requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. As with the other registrations, expert review should be completed before your document is approved for publication as an RFC. The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required upon approval of this document. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2018-01-12
|
15 | Brian Weis | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Brian Weis. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-04
|
15 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-31
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-12-31
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2017-12-28
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2017-12-28
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2017-12-21
|
15 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-20
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-12-20
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG (nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-01-16 (this date has been extended to accommodate year-end holidays). Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. 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 file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-25 |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was changed |
2017-12-19
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-11-20
|
15 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15.txt |
2017-11-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-11-20
|
15 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-14
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Spencer Dawkins Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler Internet Draft: Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-14.txt (1) What type of RFC … Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Spencer Dawkins Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler Internet Draft: Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-14.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D. The purpose of this document is to specify a new Flex File Layout Type for parallel NFS (pNFS). (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This Internet-Draft introduces the Flex File Layout Type to extend parallel NFS (pNFS). This layout type allows for the control protocol to be defined in another I-D or to be the NFS storage protocol. This I-D details the interaction of the new layout type with both NFSv4.1 and NFSv4.2 metadata servers. It also introduces client-side mirroring for the replication of files. Working Group Summary: The WG had no major issues during the WGLC. The new layout type is implementable. There are several client and server implementations already interoperating based on the I-D. Document Quality: This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements for creating a new Layout Type. It uses the three existing Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the requirements were issues considered during the creation of earlier Layout Types. I.e., it captures the relevancy of the requirements. The content of this document has received quality feedback and review throughout its life. Personnel: Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the document in full (intermediate drafts and the final version). This version is ready for IETF review and publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The I-D has gone through WGLC twice - after the end of the first one and before the document shepherd process, a late review discovered a significant issue. The I-D went back to the WG and stayed there until the issue was resolved. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The security for the control path leverages exising security mechanisms from NFSv4.1+. On the data path, this also applies for tightly coupled storage devices. For the loosely coupled storage devices, RPCSEC_GSS is not defined for this version of the Flex Files Layout Type. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No outstanding concerns exist for this document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is solid working group consensus for this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or its contents. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. One reference that will need to be addressed with the editor. Minor issue. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Not applicable. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Not applicable. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Not applicable. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Not applicable. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | Changed document writeup |
2017-10-25
|
14 | Spencer Shepler | Changed document writeup |
2017-09-05
|
14 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-14.txt |
2017-09-05
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-05
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-09-05
|
14 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-05
|
13 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-08-08
|
13 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> |
2017-08-08
|
13 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler |
2017-08-07
|
13 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-13.txt |
2017-08-07
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-07
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-08-07
|
13 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-20
|
12 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-12.txt |
2017-07-20
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-20
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-07-20
|
12 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-18
|
11 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-11.txt |
2017-07-18
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-18
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-07-18
|
11 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-17
|
10 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-10.txt |
2017-07-17
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-17
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-07-17
|
10 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-09
|
09 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-09.txt |
2017-05-09
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-09
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benny Halevy , Thomas Haynes |
2017-05-09
|
09 | Thomas Haynes | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-14
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-05-09
|
08 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-08.txt |
2016-01-22
|
07 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-07.txt |
2015-08-24
|
06 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-08-24
|
06 | Spencer Shepler | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-07-21
|
06 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-06.txt |
2015-02-09
|
05 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-05.txt |
2014-12-04
|
04 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-04.txt |
2014-12-01
|
03 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-03.txt |
2014-10-07
|
02 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-02.txt |
2014-09-04
|
01 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-01.txt |
2014-08-12
|
00 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-00.txt |