Skip to main content

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