Reporting of Errors via LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-04

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec and RFC 9737, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I too wonder whether this should Update: 8435 or not. It depends on what the IETF thinks Update means.

I would argue that if this is a minor implementation effort, that perhaps an Update: clause is merited, to ping implementers to look at this feature to implement. If implementing this is a monumental effort, then perhaps an Update: is less suitable and this should be thought of as a standalone extension. From what I can see as an outsider, it seems more like the former one than the latter one?

[Ballot comment]
I presume “resilvering” is a term of art so widely understood by the intended audience of this document that it needs no definition.

Nit: s/behvior/behavior/

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Dale R. Worley for the GENART review.

** Section 2.2
  If the client does use the new functionality and the metadata server
  does not support it, then the metadata server will most likely reply
  with a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID to the LAYOUTRETURN.

How else might the metadata server respond if not with NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID?

[Ballot comment]
"Abstract", paragraph 0
>    The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata
>    (MDS) and data (DS) to be on different servers.  When the metadata
>    server is restarted, the client can still modify the data file
>    component.  During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server
>    and the data servers work together to recover state (which files are
>    open, last modification time, size, etc).  If the client has not
>    encountered errors with the data files, then the state can be
>    recovered, avoiding resilvering of the data files.  With any errors,
>    there is no means by which the client can report errors to the
>    metadata server.  As such, the metadata server has to assume that
>    file needs resilvering.  This document presents an extension to
>    RFC8435 to allow the client to update the metadata and avoid the
>    resilvering.

Does this extension not change the behavior of how the client interacts with the metadata server? If it does, would this document not be updating RFC8345?

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "OPTIONAL", "SHALL", "SHOULD NOT", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "RECOMMENDED", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "MAY", "MUST NOT", "MUST",
and "REQUIRED", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate.

Found IP block or address not inside RFC5737/RFC3849 example ranges:
"15.1.9.2".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Paragraph 3
>  open, last modification time, size, etc). If the client has not encountered
>                                      ^^^
A period is needed after the abbreviation "etc.".

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA Question --> In Section 4 of the current draft the authors write: “IANA should use the current document (RFC-TBD) as the reference for the new entries.” IANA does not see any new entries in the rest of the draft. If there are explicit, new registrations to be made, they should be identified in a revised Section 4 using the guidance in [RFC8126].

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec@ietf.org, inacio@cert.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Reporting of Errors via LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Reporting of Errors via
LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-08-27. 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


  The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata
  (MDS) and data (DS) to be on different servers.  When the metadata
  server is restarted, the client can still modify the data file
  component.  During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server
  and the data servers work together to recover state (which files are
  open, last modification time, size, etc).  If the client has not
  encountered errors with the data files, then the state can be
  recovered, avoiding resilvering of the data files.  With any errors,
  there is no means by which the client can report errors to the
  metadata server.  As such, the metadata server has to assume that
  file needs resilvering.  This document presents an extension to
  RFC8435 to allow the client to update the metadata and avoid the
  resilvering.




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



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement was reached.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

This document had no controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The Linux client and at least 1 server product have committed to this minor
update.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards track.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, reminder emails and responses during the shepherding process were done
with all authors.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No IANA actions are necessary for this document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement was reached.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

This document had no controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The Linux client and at least 1 server product have committed to this minor
update.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards track.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, reminder emails and responses during the shepherding process were done
with all authors.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No IANA actions are necessary for this document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.