Requirements for Parallel NFS (pNFS) Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-13

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss/comments; changing to Yes as promised.
(Original ballot text preserved below for posterity.)


DISCUSS

Thanks for writing this up; it's good to have better clarity about the requirements placed on various
actors in pNFS.  I will change to Yes once this issue is resolved:

Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, and we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific requirements are being changed/added;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661]".

COMMENT

Section 1

  Such matters are defined in a standards-track layout type
  specification.

This could be read as saying that there is a single document, which
happens to be a layout-type specification and standards-track, that
gives guidance on how layout types differ.  Maybe:

  Each layout type will define the needed details for its usage in
  the specifciation for that layout type; layout type
  specifications are always standards-track RFCs.


Section 3.3

  [..] If the document does not
  impose implementation requirements sufficient to ensure that these
  semantic requirements are met, it is not appropriate for the working
  group to allow the document to move forward.

Maybe "it is not appropriate for publication as an IETF-stream RFC"?

  o  If the metadata server does not have a means to invalidate a
      stateid issued to the storage device to keep a particular client
      from accessing a specific file, then the layout type specification
      has to document how the metadata server is going to fence the
      client from access to the file on that storage device.

Is the stateid issued to the storage device or to the client?


Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific things are being updated;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661[".


Section 6

  [...] In the latter case, I/O access writes
  are reflected in layouts [...]

s/writes/rights/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to all involved for the work they did on this document.

I had the same confusion as Benjamin, and support his discuss. I also found one very small grammar nit in §2:

>  (file) data:  is that part of the file system object which contains
>    the data to read or written.

Change to either "...to read or write." or "...to be read or written."

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this up; it's good to have better clarity about the requirements placed on various
actors in pNFS.  I will change to Yes once this issue is resolved:

Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, and we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific requirements are being changed/added;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661]".

[Ballot comment]
Section 1

  Such matters are defined in a standards-track layout type
  specification.

This could be read as saying that there is a single document, which
happens to be a layout-type specification and standards-track, that
gives guidance on how layout types differ.  Maybe:

  Each layout type will define the needed details for its usage in
  the specifciation for that layout type; layout type
  specifications are always standards-track RFCs.


Section 3.3

  [..] If the document does not
  impose implementation requirements sufficient to ensure that these
  semantic requirements are met, it is not appropriate for the working
  group to allow the document to move forward.

Maybe "it is not appropriate for publication as an IETF-stream RFC"?

  o  If the metadata server does not have a means to invalidate a
      stateid issued to the storage device to keep a particular client
      from accessing a specific file, then the layout type specification
      has to document how the metadata server is going to fence the
      client from access to the file on that storage device.

Is the stateid issued to the storage device or to the client?


Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific things are being updated;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661[".


Section 6

  [...] In the latter case, I/O access writes
  are reflected in layouts [...]

s/writes/rights/

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this.

I had one readability issue -- I find:
" control communication requirements:  are for a layout type the
      details regarding information on layouts, stateids, file metadata,
      and file data which must be communicated between the metadata
      server and the storage devices."

to be very hard to read. I tried for a while to break this up into multiple sentences but was unable. It would be nice if the authors could succeed where I failed...

[Ballot comment]
Please use RFC8174 boilerplate and maybe double-check the use of lower case MUSTs and MAYs, e.g. should this sentence in the security considerations maybe use an upper case MUST:

"The layout type specification must ensure that only data accesses
  consistent with the NFSV4.1 security model are allowed."

[Ballot comment]
Please use RFC8174 boilerplate and maybe double-check the use of lower case MUSTs and MAYs, e.g. should this sentence in the security considerations maybe use an upper case MUST:
"The layout type specification must ensure that only data accesses
  consistent with the NFSV4.1 security model are allowed."

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

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, we do not object.

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

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for pNFS Layout Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for pNFS Layout
Types'
  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 2018-02-23. 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 defines the requirements which individual pNFS layout
  types need to meet in order to work within the parallel NFS (pNFS)
  framework as defined in RFC5661.  In so doing, it aims to clearly
  distinguish between requirements for pNFS as a whole and those
  specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.  The lack of a clear
  separation between the two set of requirements has been troublesome
  for those specifying and evaluating new Layout Types.  In this
  regard, this document updates RFC5661.




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

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


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

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-15.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?

      Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D.

      The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
      between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
      Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
      group desired to provide a document which clarifies
      what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
      the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
      (pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
      for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
      readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
      Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
      not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

      When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
      of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
      the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
      The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
      has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
      consensus to support this I-D.

      Note that working group review of the document continued after
      publication was requested,  and during the period in which the IESG
      was discussing the document as well.  The document was reworked in
      the WG to address that situation. 

Document Quality:

      This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
      for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
      Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
      requirements were issues considered during the creation of
      earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
      the requirements.  The content of this document has received
      quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
      (intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
      ready for IETF review and publication.

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

      The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
      in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
      as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

      No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
      document.

(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 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.)

      There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
      its contents.

(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.

      There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
      during the IESG review process.

(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?

      No.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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).

      Not 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.

      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.

      Not applicable.

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-15.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?

      Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D.

      The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
      between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
      Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
      group desired to provide a document which clarifies
      what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
      the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
      (pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
      for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
      readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
      Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
      not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

      When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
      of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
      the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
      The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
      has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
      consensus to support this I-D.

      Note that working group review of the document continued after
      publication was requested,  and during the period in which the IESG
      was discussing the document as well.  The document was reworked in
      the WG to address that situation. 

Document Quality:

      This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
      for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
      Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
      requirements were issues considered during the creation of
      earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
      the requirements.  The content of this document has received
      quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
      (intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
      ready for IETF review and publication.

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

      The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
      in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
      as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

      No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
      document.

(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 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.)

      There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
      its contents.

(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.

      There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
      during the IESG review process.

(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?

      No.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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).

      Not 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.

      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.

      Not applicable.

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-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?

      Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D.

      The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
      between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
      Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
      group desired to provide a document which clarifies
      what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
      the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
      (pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
      for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
      readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
      Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
      not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

      When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
      of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
      the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
      The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
      has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
      consensus to support this I-D.

      Note that working group review of the document continued after
      publication was requested,  and during the period in which the IESG
      was discussing the document as well.  The document was reworked in
      the WG to address that situation. 

Document Quality:

      This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
      for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
      Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
      requirements were issues considered during the creation of
      earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
      the requirements.  The content of this document has received
      quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
      (intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
      ready for IETF review and publication.

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

      The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
      in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
      as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

      No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
      document.

(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 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.)

      There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
      its contents.

(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.

      There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
      during the IESG review process.

(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?

      No.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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).

      Not 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.

      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.

      Not applicable.

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-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?

      Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D.

      The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
      between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
      Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
      group desired to provide a document which clarifies
      what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
      the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
      (pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
      for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
      readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
      Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
      not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

      When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
      of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
      the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
      The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
      has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
      consensus to support this I-D.

      Note that working group review of the document continued after
      publication was requested,  and during the period in which the IESG
      was discussing the document as well.  The document was reworked in
      the WG to address that situation. 

Document Quality:

      This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
      for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
      Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
      requirements were issues considered during the creation of
      earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
      the requirements.  The content of this document has received
      quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
      (intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
      ready for IETF review and publication.

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

      The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
      in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
      as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

      No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
      document.

(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 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.)

      There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
      its contents.

(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.

      There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
      during the IESG review process.

(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?

      No.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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).

      Not 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.

      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.

      Not applicable.

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-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?

      Proposed Standard RFC is being requested for this I-D.

      The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
      between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
      Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
      group desired to provide a document which clarifies
      what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
      the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
      (pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
      for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
      readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
      Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
      not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

      When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
      of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
      the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
      The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
      has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
      consensus to support this I-D.

      Note that there was a late review inside the group after the
      document had already been put before the IESG. The document
      was reworked inside the WG.

Document Quality:

      This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
      for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
      Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
      requirements were issues considered during the creation of
      earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
      the requirements.  The content of this document has received
      quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
      (intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
      ready for IETF review and publication.

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

      The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
      in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
      as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

      No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
      document.

(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 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.)

      There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
      its contents.

(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.

      There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
      during the IESG review process.

(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?

      No.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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).

      Not 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.

      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.

      Not applicable.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  I would expect the security consideration to discuss the shift to security at the client as well as to see some text on access controls and access checks, which may just refer to existing sections. 

The SecDir review had similar comments with some specific suggestions that do not appear to have been addressed, but please do point me to the thread if there has been follow up.  Specifically, better organization of the security considerations is requested and I agree with Joe's assessment.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05662.html

[Ballot comment]
Some nits and editorial comments, as mentioned by Menachem in his OPS-DIR review:

NITS
====

The tool has found the following:

== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-02


Additional NITS
===============

Abstract First Sentence: Repetition of the word "those".

This document provides help in distinguishing between the requirements for Network File System (NFS) version 4.1's Parallel NFS (pNFS) and those those specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.

Section 2: Definitions - Not sure whether the word :striped" was intended here.

Data Server (DS): is one of the pNFS servers which provide the contents of a file system object which is a regular file. Depending on the layout, there might be one or more data servers over which the data is striped.


Section 2: Definitions - Suggest "lay out" rather than "lays out".

Layout Type: describes both the storage protocol used to access the data and the aggregation scheme used to lays out the file data on the underlying storage devices.

Section 3.3: Editorial Requirements - Suggest "separately" rather than "separably"

"While these could be envisioned as one section in that the fencing
issue might be the only security issue, it is recommended to deal
with them separably."

[Ballot comment]

Did I miss a response to the secdir review? [1] I think
Joe's questions are worth answering so I hope you do.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05662.html

[Ballot comment]
Nit,

4.3.  Object Layout Type

  The Object Layout Type focuses security checks to occur during the
  allocation of the layout.  The client will typically ask for a layout
  for each byte-range of either READ or READ/WRITE

I don't think focuses is right word in this context... forces?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-03, 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for pNFS Layout Types) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for pNFS Layout Types'
  as Informational RFC

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 2015-04-16. 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


  This document provides help in distinguishing between the
  requirements for Network File System (NFS) version 4.1's Parallel NFS
  (pNFS) and those those specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.
  The lack of a clear separation between the two set of requirements
  has been troublesome for those specifying and evaluating new Layout
  Types.  As this document clarifies RFC5661, it effectively updates
  RFC5661.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types/ballot/


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

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

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-02-shepherd.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?

        Informational RFC is being requested for this I-D.

        The purpose of this document was to clarify the requirements
        between parallel NFS (pNFS) and those for the pNFS File
        Layout Type. With new Layout Types being proposed, the working
        group desired to provide a document which clarifies
        what the new Layout Type specification must capture.

(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 outlines high-level requirements for
the introduction of new Layout Types into parallel NFS
(pNFS).  In RFC5661, the delineation between the requirements
for pNFS and the File Layout Type is not clear for all
readers. This I-D clarifies the responsibilities of a generic
Layout Type by examining all of the existing Layout Types,
not just the File Layout Type.

Working Group Summary:

When discussing new proposed Layout Types, there was a lot
of confusion about the role of a Control Protocol between
the metadata server, the storage devices, and the clients.
The casting of the Control Protocol as a set of requirements
has reduced that confusion and has resulted in a broad
consensus to support this I-D.

Document Quality:

This Internet Draft reviews and clarifies the requirements
        for creating a new Layout Type.  It uses the three existing
        Layout Type specification as case studies to show that the
requirements were issues considered during the creation of
earlier Layout Types.  I.e., it captures the relevancy of
the requirements.  The content of this document has received
quality feedback and review throughout its life.

Personnel:

Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Martin Stiemerling is the Responsible Area Director.


(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 reviewed the document in full
(intermediate drafts and the final version).  This version is
ready for IETF review and publication.

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

The Requirements for pNFS Layout Types I-D covers the topic
in the appropriate depth.  It uses exisitng Layout Types
as case studies to show the applicability of the requirements.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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 outstanding concerns exist for this document.

(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.

No.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
document.

(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 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.)

There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
its contents.

(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.

There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
during the IESG review process.

(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?

No.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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).

Not 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.

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.

Not applicable.