Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8166, changed title to 'Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version 1', changed abstract to 'This document specifies a protocol for conveying Remote Procedure Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA).  This protocol is referred to as the RPC-over- RDMA version 1 protocol in this document.  It requires no revision to application RPC protocols or the RPC protocol itself.  This document obsoletes RFC 5666.', changed pages to 55, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-06-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis and RFC 5666)

[Ballot comment]

- 3.4.5: Can a requester DoS a responder by asking the
latter to read giga- or tera-bytes?  And the same question
the other way about for 3.4.6.

- 4.4.1: not having access to memory allocated for
"cancelled RPCs" also seems like a potential DoS that ought
be noted. Is it?

- General: I was surprised see no mention of DoS. Is that
covered in some reference? Even if so, I'd have expected
some discussion of DoS attacks and mitigations.

- 8.2.1: "Protection below the RDMA layer is a more
appropriate security mechanism for RDMA transports in
performance-sensitive deployments." I think that's a bit
over-stated. A deployment could be performance-sensitive
but yet prioritise application layer crypto for various
reasons. As you're really just talking about trade-offs,
and I think that's sufficiently explained already, I figure
you could omit that sentence.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We understand that the actions specified in the IANA Considerations section of this document have been completed as a result of actions taken upon the publication of other RFCs. We further understand that this section of the document has no new actions for the IANA Services Operator.

IANA Services Operator Question --> In the three assignments specified in this document (unchanged from RFC 5666) should a new reference [ RFC-to-be ] be added to the existing references?

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
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-09.txt> (Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call, Version One) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call,
  Version One'
  <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-09.txt> 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 2017-02-07. 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 a protocol for conveying Remote Procedure
  Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of Remote Direct
  Memory Access (RDMA).  It requires no revision to application RPC
  protocols or the RPC protocol itself.  This document obsoletes RFC
  5666.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis/ballot/


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

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

Internet Draft:
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bix-08.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?

This document is a candidate for Proposed Standard RFCs.

(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 a protocol for conveying Remote Procedure
  Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of Remote Direct
  Memory Access (RDMA).  It requires no revision to application RPC
  protocols or the RPC protocol itself.  This document obsoletes RFC
  5666.

Working Group Summary

  This document has been non-controversial within the working group
  and there is broad support for the work.

Document Quality

  The document quality is high.  Since this is a bis document it is
  based on existing protocol experience and implementation
  guidance. In fact, this experience is the reason why the document
  was created - to clarify and correct inaccuracies in the existing
  I-D.

(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.

    Not applicable.

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

None.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

One reference will need to be updated to most recent version.
No other major issues.

(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.

(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.

This is a "bis" document for RFC5666 and thus will "obsolete"
the existing RFC.

(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.  Since this is a "bis" document
the existing IANA registries are left as they are today and
NO further addition or modification is needed

(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.