Object-Based Parallel NFS (pNFS) Operations
draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
2008-12-19
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-19
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-12-19
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-12-19
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-12-19
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-12-19
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-12-19
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
2008-12-15
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-12.txt |
2008-12-10
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent by Lars Eggert |
2008-12-10
|
12 | Lars Eggert | The XDR copyright still needs to be updated. |
2008-12-10
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
2008-12-07
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-07
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-11.txt |
2008-12-05
|
12 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 |
2008-12-04
|
12 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Section 4.4.4 lists an issue which seems unresolved in the current version of the document. Can we resolve it and/or adopt the already … [Ballot discuss] Section 4.4.4 lists an issue which seems unresolved in the current version of the document. Can we resolve it and/or adopt the already agreed resolution to the document so that the document can be approved? Also: > Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types > from the NFSv4.1 nfs4_prot.x file ([8]). ... > 14.2. Informative References > [8] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "NFSv4 Minor Version 1 > XDR Description", May 2008, Given the former, I do not think [8] can be an informative reference. |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid … [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid associated with the respective deviceid > present in the credential. If the client's view of the deviceid > mapping is stale, the client will use the wrong systemid (which must > be system-wide unique) and the I/O request to the OSD will fail to > pass the integrity check verification. > > To recover from this condition the client should report the error and > return the layout using LAYOUTRETURN, and invalidate all the device > address mappings associated with this layout. The client can then > ask for a new layout if it wishes using LAYOUTGET Is it really the client that should report the error, not the server? > /// uint64_t oda_lun; The concept "lun" is mentioned only twice in the document, and never explained. Please explain. > SHOULD provide a zero-length oti_scsi_device_id<> opaque value Note Garbled text. > P+Q encoding scheme [ Internet-Draft pnfs objects June 2008 Codes, Part I"'>17]. In this layout, the last two component Garbled text. > The most common source of these errors is media errors, but other > internal errors might cause this. "... cause this as well" might be better. |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Section 4.4.4 lists an issue which seems unresolved in the current version of the document. Can we resolve it and/or adopt the already … [Ballot discuss] Section 4.4.4 lists an issue which seems unresolved in the current version of the document. Can we resolve it and/or adopt the already agreed resolution to the document so that the document can be approved? |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid … [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid associated with the respective deviceid > present in the credential. If the client's view of the deviceid > mapping is stale, the client will use the wrong systemid (which must > be system-wide unique) and the I/O request to the OSD will fail to > pass the integrity check verification. > > To recover from this condition the client should report the error and > return the layout using LAYOUTRETURN, and invalidate all the device > address mappings associated with this layout. The client can then > ask for a new layout if it wishes using LAYOUTGET Is it really the client that should report the error, not the server? > /// uint64_t oda_lun; The concept "lun" is mentioned only twice in the document, and never explained. Please explain. > SHOULD provide a zero-length oti_scsi_device_id<> opaque value Note Garbled text. > P+Q encoding scheme [ Internet-Draft pnfs objects June 2008 Codes, Part I"'>17]. In this layout, the last two component Garbled text. |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid … [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid associated with the respective deviceid > present in the credential. If the client's view of the deviceid > mapping is stale, the client will use the wrong systemid (which must > be system-wide unique) and the I/O request to the OSD will fail to > pass the integrity check verification. > > To recover from this condition the client should report the error and > return the layout using LAYOUTRETURN, and invalidate all the device > address mappings associated with this layout. The client can then > ask for a new layout if it wishes using LAYOUTGET Is it really the client that should report the error, not the server? > /// uint64_t oda_lun; The concept "lun" is mentioned only twice in the document, and never explained. Please explain. > SHOULD provide a zero-length oti_scsi_device_id<> opaque value Note Garbled text. |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid … [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid associated with the respective deviceid > present in the credential. If the client's view of the deviceid > mapping is stale, the client will use the wrong systemid (which must > be system-wide unique) and the I/O request to the OSD will fail to > pass the integrity check verification. > > To recover from this condition the client should report the error and > return the layout using LAYOUTRETURN, and invalidate all the device > address mappings associated with this layout. The client can then > ask for a new layout if it wishes using LAYOUTGET Is it really the client that should report the error, not the server? > /// uint64_t oda_lun; The concept "lun" is mentioned only twice in the document, and never explained. Please explain. |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid … [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec > The server computes the capability key using > its own view of the systemid associated with the respective deviceid > present in the credential. If the client's view of the deviceid > mapping is stale, the client will use the wrong systemid (which must > be system-wide unique) and the I/O request to the OSD will fail to > pass the integrity check verification. > > To recover from this condition the client should report the error and > return the layout using LAYOUTRETURN, and invalidate all the device > address mappings associated with this layout. The client can then > ask for a new layout if it wishes using LAYOUTGET Is it really the client that should report the error, not the server? |
2008-12-04
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > use of IPSEC correct capitalization is IPsec |
2008-12-03
|
12 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-12-03
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also under consideration by the … IANA comments: IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also under consideration by the IESG. As a result, upon approval of this document, IANA has NO ADDITIONAL actions other than those outlined in the companion document: draft-ietf-nfsv4- minorversion1-26. |
2008-12-03
|
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-12-03
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-12-03
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-12-03
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-10.txt |
2008-12-02
|
12 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-12-02
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-28
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-28
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Brian Carpenter's review requires a response and will likely lead to a revision. |
2008-11-28
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Change Notice email list have been change to nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj@tools.ietf.org from nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2008-11-27
|
12 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-11-25
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sean Turner. |
2008-11-22
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2008-11-22
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-22
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-10-21
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2008-10-21
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2008-10-14
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Tentatively putting this on the 2008-12-06 agenda as an early warning to others to keep the agenda otherwise light. |
2008-10-14
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2008-09-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2008-09-23
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-23
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-23
|
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-09-23
|
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-09-23
|
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-09-23
|
12 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-18
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2008-09-18
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cindy Morgan |
2008-09-18
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed the documents and believes they are ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received review outside of the principle authors and during the course of the working group last call. The specification has also enjoyed a degree of implementation that has lead to clarifications and updates. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns exist. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No such concerns exist. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus within the NFSv4 working group and NFS community in general. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Yes. Are the IANA registries clearly identified? Yes. If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? N/A See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? N/A (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document provides a specification of the object-based layout type definition to be used with the NFSv4.1 protocol. As such, this is a companion specification to NFS version 4 Minor Version 1. Working Group Summary As part of the NFSv4.1 document review, this document benefited from formal review and portions of the specified protocol have also been prototyped. The NFSv4 working group has been supportive of this work and there have been no major constroversies during its development. Document Quality As mentioned, this document and the mainline NFSv4.1 specification have enjoyed general review along with detailed formal review within the working group. The specification has also been embodied in at least one prototype as a method of verifying the suitable of the document in leading to reasonable implementation. Therefore, the overall quality of this document is high. |
2008-06-19
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-09.txt |
2008-05-18
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-08.txt |
2008-04-01
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-07.txt |
2008-03-17
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-06.txt |
2008-02-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-05.txt |
2007-09-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-04.txt |
2007-03-08
|
12 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
2007-03-07
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-03.txt |
2007-03-02
|
12 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2007-03-02
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-08-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-02.txt |
2006-06-28
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-01.txt |
2006-06-12
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching |
2006-01-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-obj-00.txt |