Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 2 Protocol
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-41

[Ballot comment]


- 1.3.2: I'm just curious, feel free to ignore. Does anyone
maintain those posix specs these days? (e.g.
[posix_fadvise]).

- 1.4: "a new arm" isn't clear to this reader, maybe
consider re-phrasing if this isn't a common NFS term (if it
is, that's fine)

- 4.10: thanks for providing all that!

- 4.10: possibly dumb question: does this (or NFSv4) support
what a user would perceive as an encrypting file system
where the keys are held-by/derived from something on the
user's machine? If so, and if the two servers involved use
keys known at the user's machine and not by the NFS
infrastructure then I'm not sure how this can work. IOW, if
there's a decryption and then a re-encryption required in a
server-server copy and if that needs any keying material
from the client then could that ever work? Note that I'm not
talking about securing the file during the server-server
copy but de-crypting before sending and then re-encrypting
before storing.

- 9.6: Is it considered a requirement that e.g. a user
cleared to secret cannot tell if there is anything stored
that is of higher classification? If so, did anyone go
through all NFS interfaces to check if e.g. disk or
directory usage information could give away the fact that
there is stuff stored that's not visible to this user?  I'm
not arguing that this definitely needs to be done
exhaustively, but maybe consider adding a caveat emptor
sentence somewhere saying that even with MAC, it could be
that NFS allows for some minor meta-data leakage such as the
above.

[Ballot comment]
I appear to be in the minority here, in that I *did* understand this document's place relative to 4.0, and 4.1.  Still, I agree that clarifying that is really important, and I'll suggest a specific clarification in Section 1.1):

OLD
  This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol.  With respect to
  NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, this document does not:
NEW
  This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol as extensions to
  the specifications of NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1. Those specifications
  remain current and form the basis for the additions defined
  herein.  It is necessary to implement those before adding
  NFSv4.2 to the implementation.
 
  With respect to NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, this document does not:
END

-- Section 1.2 --

  A major goal of the design of NFSv4.2 is to take common local file
  system features and offer them remotely.

This sounds like it means to be a change in goals relative to 4.0 and 4.1.  I think it would fit better to say it this way, and would add to the clarification above:

NEW
  A major goal of the enhancements provided in NFSv4.2 is to take
  common local file system features that have not been available
  through earlier versions of NFS, and to offer them remotely.
END

-- Section 6.1 --

  Hole:  A byte range within a Sparse file that contains regions of all
      zeroes.  A hole might or might not have space allocated or
      reserved to it.

I'm wondering about the "regions of" here: If I have a byte range that contains two regions of all zeroes and something that's not all zeroes in between those two regions, I do not have a (single) hole, do I?  Why does this say "regions of"?

And a question: Is there any disctinction between a byte-range within a sparse file that happens to contain all zeroes... and one that is recorded in metadata as being all zeroes?  Can some file systems write a region of zeroes without "knowing" that they have created a hole?  Does this distinction matter here?

-- Section 6.2.1 --

  Note that as the client has no a priori
  knowledge of whether a hole is present or not

(No need to respond to this; take it or leave it as you please.)  I have a general preference for avoiding Latin terms, as they're not properly understood by everyone.  In this case, too, "a priori" has a connotation that goes beyond the literal Latin translation.  I think it'd be better to word this as "Because the client does not know in advance whether a hole is present or not".

  READ_PLUS extends the response with a new arm representing holes to
  avoid returning data for portions of the file which are initialized
  to zero and may or may not contain a backing store.  Returning data
  blocks of uninitialized data wastes computational and network
  resources, thus reducing performance.

It wouldn't be "uninitialized" data, would it?  It'd be zeroes.  I think you might just want to say "Returning actual data blocks corresponding to holes", yes?

  By contrast, if a READ_PLUS occurs in the middle of a hole,
  the server can send back a range which starts before the offset and
  extends past the range.

I'm not sure how a range can extend past itself ("a range which ... extends past the range").  I think you just want to say "a range representing the hole."

-- Section 6.2.2 --

  DEALLOCATE can be used to hole punch, which allows the client to
  avoid the transfer of a repetitive pattern of zeros across the
  network.

This is the first time you've mentioned DEALLOCATE where I think I understand that it is a way of doing a WRITE wherein the client sends the representation of a hole to the server, rather than actually doing a WRITE.  (I had previously thought it was used to tell the server to undo an ALLOCATE, but it now seems that they are related things, but are not duals.)

You might want to be more clear about this here, especially if what I say in the previous paragraph is wrong.

-- Section 7 --

  Lesser space MAY be
  consumed for backups after block deallocation.

I don't think this is a proper 2119 MAY; it sounds like a statement of fact, not a protocol option.

[Ballot comment]
I am, of course, as confused as the rest of the ADs who have commented about the relationship between 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2. If that could be easily explained in the first part of the document, great.

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document, but the relationship with the older versions and how versioning is handled is not clear to me.  Some parts of the document that add to my confusion:

- Section 2. (Minor Versioning) says that “NFSv4.2 only defines extensions to NFSv4.1”, but draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning [*] says that “minor versions zero and one are not extensible.”

- Section 1.1. (Scope of This Document) says that “NFSv4.2 is a superset of NFSv4.1, with all of the new features being optional”.  Which sounds to me as if this document is defining more optional features for NFSv4.1 and not an extension.

In any case, I am not familiar with the versioning (which is why I wanted to learn about it), but I am now more confused than before.  It may all be a case of terminology..

[*] Why isn’t the reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning Normative?  Also, the reference ([NFSv4-Versioning]) is not formatted correctly.

[Ballot comment]
I've cleared my DISCUSS position based on email discussion.

=== Substantive Comments ===

-1.1 and 1.2
It would help to clarify the relationship between this draft and NFS 4.0 and 4.1. This section says that this document does not describe or clarify them. This led me to expect that the  NFS 4.2 spec would stand alone, but it seems more like this draft is incremental to at least 4.1.

Also, as mentioned in the opsdir review, it would be helpful to comment on what expectations of interoperability exist between 4.2., 4.1, and 4.0.

-4.10.1.1, last paragraph: "Servers SHOULD reject..."
Why not MUST? Do you envision circumstances where it might be okay to accept COPY_NOTIFY requests over insecure channels? Channels with other forms of privacy protection?

-- Last sentence in same paragraph:
- 9.6.1.1, first paragraph, last sentence:

Does this mean to imply that it may also choose _not_ to evaluate whether the attribute is successful?

- 9.6.1.2, last paragraph:

Why just MAY? does it ever make sense for a "Full Mode" implementation to not validate the security attributes?

- 18

The reference to [Quigley14] needs to be normative.


=== Editorial and Nits ===

- 3:
This section seems out of context. It jumps into specifics without introduction. Maybe an introductory paragraph would help, or perhaps it would help to move this section into the section on the new operations.

Also, please expand pNFS on first mention

- 4.2, paragraph 4: "traditional copy authentication approach"

Is "authentication" the right word? The paragraph otherwise seems about authorization.

-4.2.2, paragraph 6:
Please expand ONC on first mention.

- 4.10.1.1, paragraph after first code fragment:
should "cfp_shared_secret" be "cfap_shared_secret"?

- 9.6.1.1, first paragraph, first sentence:
I don’t understand this sentence. Does it add value to the paragraph?

-- [NFSv42xdr]

The reference is missing the short name for the I-D, and should be designated as a work-in-progress. (I know you intend for the RFC editor to replace this, but they have processes in place to do the right thing if you reference the I-D.)

[Ballot discuss]
I have a couple of items I would like to see discussed prior to approval. Hopefully they can be resolved easily:

- 12.1 says:

"Id:  The number assigned to the attribute.  In the event of conflicts
  between the assigned number and [NFSv42xdr], the latter is likely
  authoritative, but should be resolved with Errata to this document
  and/or [NFSv42xdr].  See [IESG08] for the Errata process."

This leaves a window open for considerable confusion down the road. Is there a reason not to just fix it now? This draft normatively depends on [NFSv42xdr] anyway, so why not completely delegate the assigned Id numbers to it?

- 4.4.2, "The client SHOULD write back the data..."
SHOULD seems weak for something where failure  could result in data corruption. Are there ever situations where it might make sense not to do this?

[Ballot comment]
=== Substantive Comments ===

-1.1 and 1.2
It would help to clarify the relationship between this draft and NFS 4.0 and 4.1. This section says that this document does not describe or clarify them. This led me to expect that the  NFS 4.2 spec would stand alone, but it seems more like this draft is incremental to at least 4.1.

Also, as mentioned in the opsdir review, it would be helpful to comment on what expectations of interoperability exist between 4.2., 4.1, and 4.0.

-4.10.1.1, last paragraph: "Servers SHOULD reject..."
Why not MUST? Do you envision circumstances where it might be okay to accept COPY_NOTIFY requests over insecure channels? Channels with other forms of privacy protection?

-- Last sentence in same paragraph:
- 9.6.1.1, first paragraph, last sentence:

Does this mean to imply that it may also choose _not_ to evaluate whether the attribute is successful?

- 9.6.1.2, last paragraph:

Why just MAY? does it ever make sense for a "Full Mode" implementation to not validate the security attributes?

- 18

The reference to [Quigley14] needs to be normative.


=== Editorial and Nits ===

- 3:
This section seems out of context. It jumps into specifics without introduction. Maybe an introductory paragraph would help, or perhaps it would help to move this section into the section on the new operations.

Also, please expand pNFS on first mention

- 4.2, paragraph 4: "traditional copy authentication approach"

Is "authentication" the right word? The paragraph otherwise seems about authorization.

-4.2.2, paragraph 6:
Please expand ONC on first mention.

- 4.10.1.1, paragraph after first code fragment:
should "cfp_shared_secret" be "cfap_shared_secret"?

- 9.6.1.1, first paragraph, first sentence:
I don’t understand this sentence. Does it add value to the paragraph?

-- [NFSv42xdr]

The reference is missing the short name for the I-D, and should be designated as a work-in-progress. (I know you intend for the RFC editor to replace this, but they have processes in place to do the right thing if you reference the I-D.)

[Ballot comment]
At this time I have no objection while awaiting the outcome of the opsdir review performed by sheng jiang

---
Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This Standards Track document specifies describes NFS version 4 minor version two, describing the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 minor version 1. It has been coupled with another document, "NFSv4 Minor Version 2 Protocol External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description, draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x. They two should be published together, I believe. This document is well written. It is almost ready to be published. There are a major comment below, which may be fixed by two references if there is already specification by another existing document:

In Section 3.3, "As the File Layout Type does not provide a means for informing the client as to which minor version a particular storage device is providing, it will have to negotiate this via the normal RPC semantics of major and minor version discovery." It is not clear how negotiation to be performed and the procedure. I did not find existing specification for minor version discovery, neither. If there were existing specifications, two references could solve my concern. But if there were not, the document may need to define the procedure by itself.

Two more comments between major and minor:

The compatibility and potential interoperation among this 4.2 and 4.1, 4.0, is still not very clear from operational perspective. It would be helpful to add one more subsection in section 1 or 2 to clarify this.

It would help to clarify whether this specification is IP independent, although my guess is positive. This document does give IPv4 examples, but not clear whether it is also working with IPv6.

Minor comments:

  RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301,
  RFC 2616 has been obsoleted by RFC 7230 series.

A few abbreviations does not give full name explanation: ONC, NIS, NTFS, HFS, HPC, pNFS, EOF, although they may be well known.

A few typos: Section 4.10.1.1.5, the last paragraph, nounce/nonce, <"copy_to_auth", user id, source list, nounce, nounce MIC, context handle, handle version>.
      Section 4.10.1.2, the second paragraph, uiniquely/uniquely, "The cnr_stateid returned from the COPY_NOTIFY can be used to uiniquely identify the destination server to the source server."
      Section 15.3, the third last paragraph, destination/ destination, "As the source does not know which netloc4 network location the destination might use to establish the copy operation"
      Section15.13.3, the third last paragraph, wlll/will, "the clone block size wlll be zeroed."

Best regards,

Sheng

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA understands that any actions required in support of this document were completed during meeting the IANA requirements in RFC 7569.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: spencer.shepler@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2'
  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 2015-12-09. 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.

Please note that these documents are belonging together and should be
reviewed together. These documents are in IETF last call:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12

Abstract


  This Internet-Draft describes NFS version 4 minor version two,
  describing the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 minor
  version 1.  Major extensions introduced in NFS version 4 minor
  version two include: Server Side Copy, Application I/O Advise, Space
  Reservations, Sparse Files, Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2/ballot/


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

This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Main)

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related)
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Related)

and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd.


(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 Internet-Draft describes NFS version 4 minor version two,
  describing the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 minor
  version 1.  Major extensions introduced in NFS version 4 minor
  version two include: Server Side Copy, Application I/O Advise, Space
  Reservations, Sparse Files, Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS.

Working Group Summary

  The journey within the working group for this document and the
  technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process
  than the norm.  However, the results are that many of the features
  have been implemented independently and the feedback has been
  effectively folded back into this document.  Thus the document
  quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed
  thoughfully and with working group consensus.
 
Document Quality

  From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been
  longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation
  feedback and the results have been a high quality document.
  The editing and feedback has been done by experience working
  group members with input from the entire community.
  Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair,
  am very pleased with the results.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Martin Stiemerling


(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.

I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer
throughout the process of document/protocol development.

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

I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review.


(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.

The area of the document that would need cross AD review (and has received
some pre-review input already) are for security.  Specifically in
the areas of the Server-Side Copy feature and for the introduction
of the Labeled Security.  From the I-D's security considerations section:

  NFSv4.2 has all of the security concerns present in NFSv4.1 (see
  Section 21 of [RFC5661]) and those present in the Server Side Copy
  (see Section 4.10) and in Labeled NFS (see Section 9.7).

Note the reliance and introduction of RPCSEC_GSSv3.  This document will
need to be considered along with this document for a complete review
by the IESG and broader IETF community.

As noted in the intro to the shepherding writeup, the following three
document should be coordinated for review given their dependencies.

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12


(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.

The document shepherd has not outstanding 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.

Not applicable.

(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? 

There is solid working group consensus for these documents.

(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.)

No, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents.

(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.

(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.

(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?

Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward.

(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.

None.

(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.

These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4.


(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 aligned with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns
with XDR syntax and standards.

This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Main)

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related)
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Related)

and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd.


(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 Internet-Draft describes NFS version 4 minor version two,
  describing the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 minor
  version 1.  Major extensions introduced in NFS version 4 minor
  version two include: Server Side Copy, Application I/O Advise, Space
  Reservations, Sparse Files, Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS.

Working Group Summary

  The journey within the working group for this document and the
  technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process
  than the norm.  However, the results are that many of the features
  have been implemented independently and the feedback has been
  effectively folded back into this document.  Thus the document
  quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed
  thoughfully and with working group consensus.
 
Document Quality

  From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been
  longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation
  feedback and the results have been a high quality document.
  The editing and feedback has been done by experience working
  group members with input from the entire community.
  Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair,
  am very pleased with the results.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Martin Stiemerling


(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.

I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer
throughout the process of document/protocol development.

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

I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review.


(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.

The area of the document that would need cross AD review (and has received
some pre-review input already) are for security.  Specifically in
the areas of the Server-Side Copy feature and for the introduction
of the Labeled Security.  From the I-D's security considerations section:

  NFSv4.2 has all of the security concerns present in NFSv4.1 (see
  Section 21 of [RFC5661]) and those present in the Server Side Copy
  (see Section 4.10) and in Labeled NFS (see Section 9.7).

Note the reliance and introduction of RPCSEC_GSSv3.  This document will
need to be considered along with this document for a complete review
by the IESG and broader IETF community.

As noted in the intro to the shepherding writeup, the following three
document should be coordinated for review given their dependencies.

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12


(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.

The document shepherd has not outstanding 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.

Not applicable.

(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? 

There is solid working group consensus for these documents.

(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.)

No, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents.

(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.

(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.

(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?

Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward.

(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.

None.

(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.

These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4.


(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 aligned with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns
with XDR syntax and standards.