Add LAYOUT_WCC to NFSv4.2's Flex File Layout Type
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-07

Network File System Version 4                                  T. Haynes
Internet-Draft                                              T. Myklebust
Intended status: Standards Track                             Hammerspace
Expires: 11 August 2025                                  7 February 2025

           Add LAYOUT_WCC to NFSv4.2's Flex File Layout Type
                     draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-07

Abstract

   This document specifies extensions to the parallel Network File
   System (NFS) version 4 (pNFS) for improving write cache consistency.
   These extensions introduce mechanisms that ensure partial writes
   performed under a pNFS layout remain coherent and correctly tracked.
   The solution addresses concurrency and data integrity concerns that
   may arise when multiple clients write to the same file through
   separate data servers.  By defining additional interactions among
   clients, metadata servers, and data servers, this specification
   enhances the reliability of NFSv4 in parallel-access environments and
   ensures consistency across diverse deployment scenarios.

Note

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the NFSv4 working group
   mailing list (nfsv4@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/.  Working Group
   information can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/
   about/.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 August 2025.

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Weak Cache Consistency (WCC)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operation 77: LAYOUT_WCC - Layout Weak Cache Consistency  . .   5
     3.4.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.4.1.  Examples of when to use LAYOUT_WCC  . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.4.2.  Examples of what to send in the LAYOUT_WCC  . . . . .   7
     3.5.  Allowed Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  Extension of Existing Implementations . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.7.  Flex Files Layout Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Extraction of XDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Code Components Licensing Notice  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   In the Network File System version 4 (NFSv4) with a Parallel NFS
   (pNFS) Flexible File Layout (see Section 12 of [RFC8435]) server,
   there is no mechanism for the data servers to update the metadata
   servers for when the data portion of the file is modified.  The
   metadata server needs this knowledge to correspondingly update the
   metadata portion of the file.  If the client is using NFSv3 as the
   protocol with the data server, it can leverage weak cache consistency
   (WCC) to update the metadata server of the attribute changes.  In
   this document, we introduce a new operation called LAYOUT_WCC to

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   NFSv4.2 which allows the client to periodically report the attributes
   of the data files to the metadata server.

   Using the process detailed in [RFC8178], the revisions in this
   document become an extension of NFSv4.2 [RFC7862].  They are built on
   top of the external data representation (XDR) [RFC4506] generated
   from [RFC7863].

1.1.  Definitions

   For a more comprehensive set of definitions, see Section 1.1 of
   [RFC8435].

   (file) data:  that part of the file system object that contains the
      data to be read or written.  It is the contents of the object
      rather than the attributes of the object.

   data server (DS):  a pNFS server that provides the file's data when
      the file system object is accessed over a file-based protocol.

   (file) metadata:  the part of the file system object that contains
      various descriptive data relevant to the file object, as opposed
      to the file data itself.  This could include the time of last
      modification, access time, EOF position, etc.

   metadata server (MDS):  the pNFS server that provides metadata
      information for a file system object.

   storage device:  the target to which clients may direct I/O requests
      when they hold an appropriate layout.  Note that each data server
      is a storage device but that some storage device are not data
      servers.  (See Section 2.1 of [RFC8434] for a discussion on the
      difference between a data server and a storage device.)

   weak cache consistency (WCC):  In NFSv3, WCC allows the client to
      check for file attribute changes before and after an operation
      (See Section 2.6 of [RFC1813]).

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
   'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
   'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

2.  Weak Cache Consistency (WCC)

   A pNFS layout type enables the metadata server to inform the client
   of both the storage protocol and the locations of the data that the
   client should use when communicating with the storage devices.  The
   Flex Files Layout Type, as specified in [RFC8435], describes how data
   servers using NFSv3 can be accessed.  The client is restricted to
   performing NFSv3 READ (Section 3.3.6 of [RFC1813]), WRITE
   (Section 3.3.6 of [RFC1813]), and COMMIT (Section 3.3.21 of
   [RFC1813]) operations on the file handles provided in the layout.  In
   other words, the client may only use NFSv3 operations that act
   directly on the data portion of the file.

   Because there is no contol protocol (see [RFC8434]) possible with all
   data servers, NFSv3 is used as the control protocol.  As such, the
   NFSv3 CREATE (see Section 3.3.8 of [RFC1813]), GETATTR (see
   Section 3.3.1 of [RFC1813]), and SETATTR (see Section 3.3.2 of
   [RFC1813]) are operations commonly used by the metadata server.
   I.e., the metadata server is only allowed to use NFSv3 operations
   which directly act on the metadata portion of the data file.  GETATTR
   allows the metadata server to mainly retrieve the mtime (modify
   time), ctime (change time), and atime (access time).  The metadata
   server can use this information to determine if the client modified
   the file whilst it held an iomode of LAYOUTIOMODE4_RW (see
   Section 3.3.20 of [RFC8881]).  Then it can determine the time_modify
   (see Section 5.8.2.43 of [RFC8881]), time_metadata (see
   Section 5.8.2.42 of [RFC8881]), and time_access (see Section 5.8.2.37
   of [RFC8881]) for the metadata file.  I.e., the information to return
   to clients in a NFSv4.2 GETATTR response.

   For example, the metadata server might issue an NFSv3 GETATTR
   operation to the data server, which is typically triggered by a
   client's NFSv4 GETATTR request to the metadata server.  In addition
   to the cost of each individual GETATTR operation, the data server can
   be overwhelmed by a large volume of such requests.  NFSv3 addressed a
   similar challenge by including a post-operation attribute in the READ
   and WRITE operations to report weak cache consistency (WCC) data (see
   Section 2.6 of [RFC1813]).

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   Each NFSv3 operation entails a single round trip between the client
   and server.  Consequently, issuing a WRITE followed by a GETATTR
   would require two round trips.  In that situation, the retrieved
   attribute information is regarded as strict server-client
   consistency.  By contrast, NFSv4 enables a WRITE and GETATTR to be
   combined within a compound operation, which requires only one round
   trip.  This combined approach is likewise considered strict server-
   client consistency.  Essentially, NFSv4 READ and WRITE operations
   omit post-operation attributes, allowing the client to determine
   whether it requires that information.

   Whilst NFSv4 got rid of the requirement for WCC information to be
   supplied by the WRITE or READ operations, the introduction of pNFS
   re-introduces the same problem.  The metadata server has to
   communicate with the data server in order to get at the data which
   could be provided by a WCC model.

   With the flexible file layout type, the client can leverage the NFSv3
   WCC to service the proxying of times (See Section 4 of
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-delstid]).  But the granularity of this data is
   limited.  With client side mirroring (See Section 8 of [RFC8435]),
   the client has to aggregate the N mirrored files in order to send one
   piece of information instead of N pieces of information.  Also, the
   client is limited to sending that information only when it returns
   the delegation.

   This document introduces a new NFSv4.2 operation, LAYOUT_WCC, which
   enables the client to provide the metadata server with information
   obtained from the data server.  The client is responsible for
   gathering the NFSv3 WCC data, returned by the three permissible NFSv3
   operations, and conveying it back to the metadata server as part of
   NFSv4.2 attributes.  The metadata server MAY therefore avoid issuing
   costly NFSv3 GETATTR calls to the data servers.  Because this
   approach relies on a weak model, the metadata server MAY still
   perform these calls if it chooses to strengthen the model.

3.  Operation 77: LAYOUT_WCC - Layout Weak Cache Consistency

3.1.  ARGUMENT

   <CODE BEGINS>
   /// struct LAYOUT_WCC4args {
   ///         stateid4        lowa_stateid;
   ///         layouttype4     lowa_type;
   ///         opaque          lowa_body<>;
   /// };
   <CODE ENDS>

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   stateid4 is defined in Section 3.3.12 of [RFC8881].  layouttype4 is
   defined in Section 3.3.13 of [RFC8881].

3.2.  RESULT

   <CODE BEGINS>
   /// struct LAYOUT_WCC4res {
   ///         nfsstat4                lowr_status;
   /// };
   <CODE ENDS>

   nfsstat4 is defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC8881].

3.3.  DESCRIPTION

   The current filehandle and the lowa_stateid identify the specific
   layout for the LAYOUT_WCC operation.  The lowa_type indicates how to
   interpret the layout-type-specific payload contained in the lowa_body
   field.  The lowa_type is the corresponding value from the IANA
   registry for 'pNFS Layout Types' for the layout type being used.

   The lowa_body contains the data file attributes.  The client is
   responsible for mapping NFSv3 post-operation attributes to the fattr4
   representation.  Similar to the behavior of post-operation
   attributes, the client may ignore these attributes, and the server
   may also choose to ignore any attributes included in LAYOUT_WCC.
   However, the server can use these attributes to avoid querying the
   data server for data file attributes.  Because these attributes are
   optional and the client has no recourse if the server opts to
   disregard them, there is no requirement to return a bitmap4
   indicating which attributes have been accepted in the LAYOUT_WCC
   result.

3.4.  Implementation

3.4.1.  Examples of when to use LAYOUT_WCC

   The only way for the metadata server to detect modifications to the
   data file is to probe the data servers via a GETATTR.  It can compare
   the mtime results across multiple calls to detect a NFSv3 WRITE
   operation by the client.  Likewise, the atime results indicate the
   client having issued a NFSv3 READ operation.  As such, the client can
   leverage the LAYOUT_WCC operation whenever it has the belief that the
   metadata server would need to refresh the attributes of the data
   files.  While the client can send a LAYOUT_WCC at any time, there are
   times it will want to do this operation in order to avoid having the
   metadata server issue NFSv3 GETATTR requests to the data servers:

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   *  Whenever it sends a GETATTR for any of the following attributes:
      size (see Section 5.8.1.5 of [RFC8881]), space_used (see
      Section 5.8.2.25 of [RFC8881]), change (see Section 5.8.1.4 of
      [RFC8881]), time_access (see Section 5.8.2.37 of [RFC8881]),
      time_metadata (see Section 5.8.2.42 of [RFC8881]), and time_modify
      (see Section 5.8.2.43 of [RFC8881]).

   *  Whenever it sends an NFS4ERR_ACCESS error via LAYOUTRETURN or
      LAYOUTERROR - it could have already gotten the NFSv3 uid and gid
      values back in the WCC of the WRITE, READ, or COMMIT operation
      which got the error.  Thus it could report that information back
      to the metadata server, saving it from querying that information
      via a NFSv3 GETATTR.

   *  Whenever it sends a SETATTR to refresh the proxied times (See
      Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-delstid]) - the metadata server is
      going to want to correlate these times in order to detect later
      modification to the data file.

3.4.2.  Examples of what to send in the LAYOUT_WCC

   The NFSv3 attributes returned in the WCC of WRITE, READ, and COMMIT
   are a smaller subset of what can be transmitted as a NFSv4 attribute.
   The mapping of NFSv3 to NFSv4 attributes is shown in Table 1.  The
   LAYOUT_WCC MUST provide all of these attributes to the metadata
   server.  Both the uid and gid are stringified into their respective
   attributes of owner and owner_group.  The reason to provide these two
   attributes is in case of NFS4ERR_ACCESS, the metadata server can
   compare what it expects the values of the uid and gid of the data
   file to be versus the actual values.  It can then repair the
   permissions as needed or modify the expected values it has cached.

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

                  +=================+===================+
                  | NFSv3 Attribute | NFSv4.2 Attribute |
                  +=================+===================+
                  | size            | size              |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | used            | space_used        |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | mode            | mode              |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | uid             | owner             |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | gid             | owner_group       |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | atime           | time_access       |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | mtime           | time_modify       |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+
                  | ctime           | time_metadata     |
                  +-----------------+-------------------+

                    Table 1: NFSv3 to NFSv4.2 Attribute
                                  Mappings

3.5.  Allowed Errors

   The LAYOUT_WCC operation can raise the errors in Table 2.  When an
   error is encountered, the metadata server can decide to ignore the
   entire operation or depending on the layout type specific payload, it
   could decide to apply a portion of the payload.  Note that there are
   no new errors introduced for the LAYOUT_WCC operation and the errors
   in Table 2 are each defined in Section 15.1 of [RFC8881].  Table 2
   can be considered as an extension of Section 15.2 of [RFC8881].

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

    +============+====================================================+
    | Operation  | Errors                                             |
    +============+====================================================+
    | LAYOUT_WCC | NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_BADXDR,             |
    |            | NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION,          |
    |            | NFS4ERR_DELAY, NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED,              |
    |            | NFS4ERR_EXPIRED, NFS4ERR_FHEXPIRED, NFS4ERR_GRACE, |
    |            | NFS4ERR_INVAL, NFS4ERR_ISDIR, NFS4ERR_MOVED,       |
    |            | NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE, NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP,             |
    |            | NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE, NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID,             |
    |            | NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG,    |
    |            | NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG_TO_CACHE, NFS4ERR_REQ_TOO_BIG, |
    |            | NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT,   |
    |            | NFS4ERR_STALE, NFS4ERR_TOO_MANY_OPS,               |
    |            | NFS4ERR_UNKNOWN_LAYOUTTYPE, NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED,    |
    |            | NFS4ERR_WRONG_TYPE                                 |
    +------------+----------------------------------------------------+

                 Table 2: Operations and Their Valid Errors

3.6.  Extension of Existing Implementations

   The new LAYOUT_WCC operation is OPTIONAL for both NFSv4.2 ([RFC7863])
   and the flexible file layout type ([RFC8435]).

3.7.  Flex Files Layout Type

   <CODE BEGINS>
   /// struct ff_data_server_wcc4 {
   ///             deviceid4            ffdsw_deviceid;
   ///             stateid4             ffdsw_stateid;
   ///             nfs_fh4              ffdsw_fh_vers<>;
   ///             fattr4               ffdsw_attributes;
   /// };
   ///
   /// struct ff_mirror_wcc4 {
   ///             ff_data_server_wcc4  ffmw_data_servers<>;
   /// };
   ///
   /// struct ff_layout_wcc4 {
   ///             ff_mirror_wcc4       fflw_mirrors<>;
   /// };
   <CODE ENDS>

   The flex file layout type specific results MUST correspond to the
   ff_layout4 data structure as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC8435].
   There MUST be a one-to-one correspondence between:

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   *  ff_data_server4 -> ff_data_server_wcc4

   *  ff_mirror4 -> ff_mirror_wcc4

   *  ff_layout4 -> ff_layout_wcc4

   Each ff_layout4 has an array of ff_mirror4, which have an array of
   ff_data_server4.  Based on the current filehandle and the
   lowa_stateid, the server can match the reported attributes.

   But the positional correspondence between the elements is not
   sufficient to determine the attributes to update.  Consider the case
   where a layout had three mirrors and two of them had updated
   attributes, but the third did not.  A client could decide to present
   all three mirrors, with one mirror having an attribute mask with no
   attributes present.  Or it could decide to present only the two
   mirrors which had been changed.

   In either case, the combination of ffdsw_deviceid, ffdsw_stateid, and
   ffdsw_fh_vers will uniquely identify the attributes to be updated.
   All three arguments are required.  A layout might have multiple data
   files on the same storage device, in which case the ffdsw_deviceid
   and ffdsw_stateid would match, but the ffdsw_fh_vers would not.

   The ffdsw_attributes are processed similar to the obj_attributes in
   the SETATTR arguments (See Section 18.34 of [RFC8881]).

4.  Extraction of XDR

   This document contains the external data representation (XDR)
   [RFC4506] description of the new open flags for delegating the file
   to the client.  The XDR description is embedded in this document in a
   way that makes it simple for the reader to extract into a ready-to-
   compile form.  The reader can feed this document into the following
   shell script to produce the machine-readable XDR description of the
   new flags:

   <CODE BEGINS>
   #!/bin/sh
   grep '^ *///' $* | sed 's?^ */// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??'
   <CODE ENDS>

   That is, if the above script is stored in a file called 'extract.sh',
   and this document is in a file called 'spec.txt', then the reader can
   do:

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   <CODE BEGINS>
   sh extract.sh < spec.txt > layout_wcc.x
   <CODE ENDS>

   The effect of the script is to remove leading white space from each
   line, plus a sentinel sequence of '///'.  XDR descriptions with the
   sentinel sequence are embedded throughout the document.

   Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
   from the NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file (generated from [RFC7863]).  This
   includes both nfs types that end with a 4, such as offset4, length4,
   etc., as well as more generic types such as uint32_t and uint64_t.

   While the XDR can be appended to that from [RFC7863], the various
   code snippets belong in their respective areas of that XDR.

4.1.  Code Components Licensing Notice

   Both the XDR description and the scripts used for extracting the XDR
   description are Code Components as described in Section 4 of 'Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents' [LEGAL].  These Code
   Components are licensed according to the terms of that document.

5.  Security Considerations

   There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC8435].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   There are no IANA considerations for this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-delstid]
              Haynes, T. and T. Myklebust, "Extending the Opening of
              Files in NFSv4.2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-08, 2 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-
              delstid-08>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

   [RFC4506]  Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
              Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>.

   [RFC7862]  Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
              Version 2 Protocol", RFC 7862, DOI 10.17487/RFC7862,
              November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7862>.

   [RFC7863]  Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
              Version 2 External Data Representation Standard (XDR)
              Description", RFC 7863, DOI 10.17487/RFC7863, November
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7863>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8178]  Noveck, D., "Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor
              Versions", RFC 8178, DOI 10.17487/RFC8178, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8178>.

   [RFC8434]  Haynes, T., "Requirements for Parallel NFS (pNFS) Layout
              Types", RFC 8434, DOI 10.17487/RFC8434, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8434>.

   [RFC8435]  Halevy, B. and T. Haynes, "Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible
              File Layout", RFC 8435, DOI 10.17487/RFC8435, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8435>.

   [RFC8881]  Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS)
              Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [LEGAL]    IETF Trust, "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents",
              November 2008, <http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-
              License-Policy.pdf>.

   [RFC1813]  Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
              Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>.

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                 LAYOUT_WCC                  February 2025

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Dave Noveck, Tigran Mkrtchyan, and Rick Macklem provided reviews of
   the document.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Haynes
   Hammerspace
   Email: loghyr@gmail.com

   Trond Myklebust
   Hammerspace
   Email: trondmy@hammerspace.com

Haynes & Myklebust       Expires 11 August 2025                [Page 13]