Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (email@example.com)
Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
Network File System (NFS) Version 4
External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
(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:
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
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.
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 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?
(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
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.
(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
The quoted IPR was filed against the original RFC 3530 and is:
(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.)
(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.
(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.
(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
The IANA has been reviewed and been found to meet the
(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.