Shepherd writeup

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

Internet Draft:

Requirements for pNFS Layout Types

(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.


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?


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

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

(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 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?


(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?


(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

       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.