Shepherd writeup

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler 

Internet Draft:

Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible File Layout

(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.


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?


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

       No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this

(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 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?


(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?


(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

       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.