Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-10-24
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-10-09
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-09-28
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-09-07
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2017-09-06
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari. |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-09-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-09-05
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-09-05
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-09-05
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-08-31
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2017-08-31
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-08-31
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-08-31
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-08-31
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-08-30
|
13 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-08-29
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-08-29
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-08-29
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-08-28
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-08-27
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me, the new text in -13, "An Upper … [Ballot comment] This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me, the new text in -13, "An Upper Layer Binding specifies this agreement for one version or more versions of one RPC program" would be less clunky it read "one or more versions". I know we talked about that on e-mail, so I'm just adding this to my Yes ballot so *I* remember to check for it! |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-08-25
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-08-24
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. |
2017-08-24
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-08-21
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-08-21
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13. 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-rfc5667bis-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/ there are three entries for port number 20049 in support of Network File System (NFS) over RDMA. We understand that the current draft obsoletes the RFC that created these three port number registrations. As a result, the reference for the TCP, UDP, and SCTP registrations for port number 20049 should be change from [ RFC5666 ] to [ RFC-to-be ]. The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
2017-08-15
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-31 |
2017-08-15
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2017-08-15
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@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: (Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1) 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) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1' 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 2017-08-24. 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 This document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA version 1, enabling the use of Direct Data Placement. This document obsoletes RFC 5667. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13.txt |
2017-08-10
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-10
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2017-08-10
|
13 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-08
|
12 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-12.txt |
2017-08-08
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-08
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2017-08-08
|
12 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-07
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation |
2017-08-03
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or … This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11 (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 (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 document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA Version One, enabling the use of Direct Data Placement. This document obsoletes RFC 5667. Working Group Summary The working group has been supportive of this work with little to no contention over the approach and resultant content. Document Quality The quality of this document is high and is ready to move forward. Personnel Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler Area Director: Spencer Dawkins (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. Full document was reviewed by the shepherd and the I-D is ready. (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. (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 additional concerns. (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. N/A (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 consensus from the WG 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.) N/A (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are a few nits that will be easily updated during future updates based on IESG feedback or during AUTH48 edits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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? N/A (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. N/A (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. This is a "bis" or replacement for 5667. (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). IANA section is a carry-forward of the existing RFC 5667 and is still 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. N/A (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. N/A |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Changed document writeup |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-07-14
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-05-09
|
11 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11.txt |
2017-05-09
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-09
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-05-09
|
11 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-06
|
10 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> |
2017-05-06
|
10 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler |
2017-05-06
|
10 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-05-06
|
10 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-10.txt |
2017-05-06
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-06
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-05-06
|
10 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-14
|
09 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-04-12
|
09 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09.txt |
2017-04-12
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-12
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-04-12
|
09 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-04
|
08 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-08.txt |
2017-04-04
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-04
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-04-04
|
08 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-09
|
07 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-07.txt |
2017-03-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-03-09
|
07 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-24
|
06 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-06.txt |
2017-02-24
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-24
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-02-24
|
06 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-03
|
05 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-05.txt |
2017-02-03
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-03
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-02-03
|
05 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-20
|
04 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-04.txt |
2017-01-20
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-20
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-01-20
|
04 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-28
|
03 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-03.txt |
2016-09-28
|
03 | Chuck Lever | New version approved |
2016-09-28
|
03 | Chuck Lever | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-09-28
|
03 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-25
|
02 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-02.txt |
2016-06-30
|
01 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-01.txt |
2016-06-13
|
00 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-00.txt |