Skip to main content

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-24

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-03-10
24 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-03-02
24 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-02-15
24 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-12-23
24 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-12-22
24 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2014-12-22
24 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-12-22
24 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-12-22
24 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-12-22
24 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-12-22
24 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-12-22
24 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-12-22
24 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-12-21
24 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2014-12-21
24 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-12-15
24 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-12-12
24 Elwyn Davies Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies.
2014-12-04
24 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-24.txt
2014-12-04
23 Thomas Haynes IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-12-04
23 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-23.txt
2014-12-04
22 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-12-04
22 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2014-12-04
22 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-12-04
22 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-12-04
22 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-12-03
22 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-12-03
22 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2014-12-03
22 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-12-03
22 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-12-03
22 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-12-03
22 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-12-03
22 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-12-02
22 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-11-28
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2014-11-28
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2014-11-28
22 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2014-11-22
22 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-11-20
22 Martin Stiemerling Telechat date has been changed to 2014-12-04 from 2013-05-30
2014-10-20
22 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-10-20
22 Martin Stiemerling Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-10-20
22 Martin Stiemerling Ballot has been issued
2014-10-20
22 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-10-06
22 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-09-29
22 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2014-09-29
22 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2014-09-26
22 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-09-26
22 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-22, which is currently in Last Call,
and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-22, which is currently in Last Call,
and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-09-25
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2014-09-25
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2014-09-25
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2014-09-25
22 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2014-09-24
22 Cindy Morgan Created "Approve" ballot
2014-09-24
22 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-09-22
22 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Version …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Version 4 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Network File System (NFS) Version 4 External Data Representation
  Standard (XDR) Description'
  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 2014-10-06. 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 Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed filesystem
  protocol which owes its heritage to NFS protocol version 2, RFC 1094,
  and version 3, RFC 1813.  Unlike earlier versions, the NFS version 4
  protocol supports traditional file access, while integrating support
  for file locking and the mount protocol.  In addition, support for
  strong security (and its negotiation), compound operations, client
  caching, and internationalization have been added.  Of course,
  attention has been applied to making NFS version 4 operate well in an
  Internet environment.

  RFC3530bis formally obsoleting RFC 3530.  This document, together
  with RFC3530bis replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of the NFS
  version 4 protocol.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2014-09-22
22 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-09-22
22 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2014-09-21
22 Martin Stiemerling Last call was requested
2014-09-21
22 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2014-09-21
22 Martin Stiemerling Last call announcement was generated
2014-08-20
22 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-08-01
22 Spencer Shepler

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-33.txt

Network …

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-33.txt

Network File System (NFS) Version 4
External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-22.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?

These documents are candidates for Proposed Standard RFCs.

As the title suggests, these are bis documents for RFC3530
which itself is of Proposed Standard status.


(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:

The Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed
filesystem protocol which owes heritage to NFS protocol
version 2, RFC 1094, and version 3, RFC 1813.  Unlike earlier
versions, the NFS version 4 protocol supports traditional file
access while integrating support for file locking and the
mount protocol.  In addition, support for strong security (and
its negotiation), compound operations, client caching, and
internationalization have been added.  Of course, attention
has been applied to making NFS version 4 operate well in an
Internet environment.

This document, together with the companion XDR description
document, RFCNFSv4XDR, replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of
the NFS version 4 protocol.

This document includes updates that address: reported errata,
clarifications related to implementation experience, and
expanded text included from other sources.

Working Group Summary:

These documents have been very non-controversial given the
nature of the included errata and the fact that most of the
document updates were drawn from the NFSv4.1 definition.

Document Quality:

The quality of this document is very high.  There are multiple
implementations of the mandatory features of the protocol and
at least one implementation covering most (if not all)
optional features.  The reason for doing the update was to
raise the overall quality through expanded explanatory text
and correcting ambiguities.


(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 done a full review of the documents
and they are ready for publication.

This resubmission was done to clarify issues raised in the last IESG
review and were mainly related to I18N behaviors.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(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.

No special review is needed.


(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.

Not applicable.

(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?

No additional IPR has been filed for this "bis" work.
Original IPR for RFC3010 and RFC3530 (if present) still apply.

Specifically:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1960/

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

The quoted IPR was filed against the original RFC 3530 and is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/721


(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?

Full working group consensus.  No issues exist.

(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.)

Not applicable.

(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.

No ID nits.

(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, appropriate references align with appropriate
normative and informative use.

(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?

All normative references are published with the exception of
the companion internet draft: "NFSv4 Version 0 XDR Description"

(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.

Yes, RFC3530 will be obsolete.

(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
).

The IANA has been reviewed and been found to meet the
necessary requirements.

(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.

IANA registries do not require expert review.

(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.

2014-08-01
22 Spencer Shepler Document shepherd changed to (None)
2014-08-01
22 Spencer Shepler Document shepherd changed to (None)
2014-08-01
22 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2014-08-01
22 Spencer Shepler IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching
2014-04-11
22 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-22.txt
2014-02-13
21 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-21.txt
2013-11-28
20 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-20.txt
2013-10-19
19 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-19.txt
2013-08-16
18 Thomas Haynes IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2013-08-16
18 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-18.txt
2013-05-30
17 Cindy Morgan State changed to AD is watching from IESG Evaluation
2013-05-30
17 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-05-30
17 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Because this and the companion document are both obsoleting RFC 3530 should the header in this document also say "obsoletes: 3530 (when approved)"? …
[Ballot comment]
Because this and the companion document are both obsoleting RFC 3530 should the header in this document also say "obsoletes: 3530 (when approved)"? Two or more documents can obsolete one RFC.
2013-05-30
17 Sean Turner Ballot comment text updated for Sean Turner
2013-05-30
17 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-05-30
17 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-05-29
17 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-05-29
17 Sean Turner Ballot comment text updated for Sean Turner
2013-05-29
17 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Just a couple of questions:

Should the copyrights in the code be update to 2013?

Should the code be clearly marked as code …
[Ballot comment]
Just a couple of questions:

Should the copyrights in the code be update to 2013?

Should the code be clearly marked as code with and ?

Should the license from 4.c of the TLP be included as a comment in the code:
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm
2013-05-29
17 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-05-28
17 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-05-28
17 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-05-28
17 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-05-27
17 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-05-27
17 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-05-23
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2013-05-23
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2013-05-22
17 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
generates what appears to be valid XDR routines using rpcgen.

I have no deep basis myself for evaluating correctness, but I have no …
[Ballot comment]
generates what appears to be valid XDR routines using rpcgen.

I have no deep basis myself for evaluating correctness, but I have no objection.
2013-05-22
17 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-05-21
17 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-05-08
17 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-17.txt
2013-04-18
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom.
2013-04-18
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-18
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling Removed telechat returning item indication
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling Telechat date has been changed to 2013-05-30 from 2013-04-25
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling Ballot has been issued
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling Created "Approve" ballot
2013-04-18
16 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2013-04-16
16 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-04-04
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-04
16 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-16, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-16, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2013-03-26
16 Martin Stiemerling Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-04-25
2013-03-21
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2013-03-21
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2013-03-21
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2013-03-21
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2013-03-19
16 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-03-19
16 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Version 4 …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Version 4 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Network File System (NFS) Version 4 External Data Representation
  Standard (XDR) Description'
  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 2013-04-16. 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 Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed filesystem
  protocol which owes heritage to NFS protocol version 2, RFC 1094, and
  version 3, RFC 1813.  Unlike earlier versions, the NFS version 4
  protocol supports traditional file access while integrating support
  for file locking and the mount protocol.  In addition, support for
  strong security (and its negotiation), compound operations, client
  caching, and internationalization have been added.  Of course,
  attention has been applied to making NFS version 4 operate well in an
  Internet environment.

  RFC3530bis is formally obsoleting RFC 3530.  But this document,
  together with RFC3530bis replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of the
  NFS version 4 protocol.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2013-03-19
16 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling Last call was requested
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling Ballot approval text was generated
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was generated
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling Last call announcement was changed
2013-03-19
16 Martin Stiemerling Last call announcement was generated
2013-03-01
16 Martin Stiemerling will start WGLC right after the IETF-86 meeting.
2013-03-01
16 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-02-25
16 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-16.txt
2013-02-12
15 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-15.txt
2013-01-18
14 Martin Stiemerling this draft is waiting for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis to be reviewed in AD evaluation, as both drafts will go for IETF LC in one set.
2013-01-17
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-01-17
14 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-14.txt
2013-01-17
13 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation
2012-11-10
13 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-13.txt
2012-10-17
12 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-10-16
12 Amy Vezza
Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-20.txt

Network …
Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-20.txt

Network File System (NFS) Version 4
External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-12.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?

These documents are candidates for Proposed Standard RFCs.

As the title suggests, these are bis documents for RFC3530
which itself is of Proposed Standard status.


(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:

The Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed
filesystem protocol which owes heritage to NFS protocol
version 2, RFC 1094, and version 3, RFC 1813.  Unlike earlier
versions, the NFS version 4 protocol supports traditional file
access while integrating support for file locking and the
mount protocol.  In addition, support for strong security (and
its negotiation), compound operations, client caching, and
internationalization have been added.  Of course, attention
has been applied to making NFS version 4 operate well in an
Internet environment.

This document, together with the companion XDR description
document, RFCNFSv4XDR, replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of
the NFS version 4 protocol.

This document includes updates that address: reported errata,
clarifications related to implementation experience, and
expanded text included from other sources.

Working Group Summary:

These documents have been very non-controversial given the
nature of the included errata and the fact that most of the
document updates were drawn from the NFSv4.1 definition.

Document Quality:

The quality of this document is very high.  There are multiple
implementations of the mandatory features of the protocol and
at least one implementation covering most (if not all)
optional features.  The reason for doing the update was to
raise the overall quality through expanded explanatory text
and correcting ambiguities.


(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 done a full review of the documents
and they are ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(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.

No special review is needed.


(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.

Not applicable.

(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?

No additional IPR has been filed for this "bis" work.
Original IPR for RFC3010 and RFC3530 (if present) still apply.

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

See (7).


(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?

Full working group consensus.  No issues exist.

(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.)

Not applicable.

(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.

No ID nits.

(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, appropriate references align with appropriate
normative and informative use.

(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?

All normative references are published with the exception of
the companion internet draft: "NFSv4 Version 0 XDR Description"

(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.

Yes, RFC3530 will be obsolete.

(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
).

The IANA has been reviewed and been found to meet the
necessary requirements.

(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.

IANA registries do not require expert review.

(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.

2012-10-16
12 Amy Vezza Note added 'Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)'
2012-10-16
12 Amy Vezza Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2012-10-16
12 Amy Vezza IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-09-04
12 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-12.txt
2012-03-12
11 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-11.txt
2011-10-30
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-10.txt
2011-09-02
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-09.txt
2011-08-17
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-08.txt
2011-04-08
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-07.txt
2011-04-04
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-06.txt
2011-03-13
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-05.txt
2011-02-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-04.txt
2011-01-13
10 (System) Document has expired
2010-07-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-03.txt
2010-07-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-02.txt
2010-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-01.txt
2009-04-03
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-00.txt