Skip to main content

Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
12 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Cullen Jennings
2008-12-19
12 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-19
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-12-19
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-19
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-19
12 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-12-19
12 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-19
12 Lars Eggert State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2008-12-16
12 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2008-12-15
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-12.txt
2008-12-05
12 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04
2008-12-04
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-11.txt
2008-12-04
12 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-12-04
12 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
I'm concerned about these lines:
  ///  * This file was machine generated for
  ///  *  draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-27

This should point to the …
[Ballot comment]
I'm concerned about these lines:
  ///  * This file was machine generated for
  ///  *  draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-27

This should point to the RFC when published.
2008-12-04
12 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-12-04
12 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-04
12 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-12-04
12 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-04
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2008-12-04
12 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-04
12 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I found it very annoying that if you extract this file with the extract script from one of the other NFSv4 drafts (I …
[Ballot comment]
I found it very annoying that if you extract this file with the extract script from one of the other NFSv4 drafts (I used the one in pnfs_obj), the end result does not compile. Something to do with the different grep patterns you used in them.

  ///  NFS4ERR_NOENT          = 2,    /* no such file/directory  */
  ///  NFS4ERR_IO            = 5,    /* hard I/O error          */
  ///  NFS4ERR_NXIO          = 6,    /* no such device          */
  ///  NFS4ERR_ACCESS        = 13,  /* access denied          */
  ///  NFS4ERR_EXIST          = 17,  /* file already exists    */
  ///  NFS4ERR_XDEV          = 18,  /* different filesystems  */
  ///  /* Unused/reserved      19 */
  ///  NFS4ERR_NOTDIR        = 20,  /* should be a directory  */

Inconsistent application of the unused/reserved comment (19 is not
the only omitted value above)
2008-12-04
12 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-04
12 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-12-04
12 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I found it annoying that if you extract this file with the extract script from one of the other NFSv4 drafts (I used …
[Ballot comment]
I found it annoying that if you extract this file with the extract script from one of the other NFSv4 drafts (I used the one in pnfs_obj), the end result does not compile. Something to do with the different grep patterns you used in them.
2008-12-03
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-12-03
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-10.txt
2008-12-03
12 Chris Newman
[Ballot comment]
I support Cullen's discuss.  I note that RFC 5378 section 6 last
paragraph forbids publication of this document with the present
copyright notices. …
[Ballot comment]
I support Cullen's discuss.  I note that RFC 5378 section 6 last
paragraph forbids publication of this document with the present
copyright notices.

Let me suggest a path forward:

1. The boilerplate should be updated to RFC 5378 boilerplate.
2. The copyright notices in the code should be removed or should be
  changed to follow the RFC 5378 boilerplate.

The result of this would be that the code license is clear (this would
grant a BSD-style license to the code in the document).
2008-12-03
12 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-03
12 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-03
12 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are
completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also
under consideration by the …
IANA comments:

IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are
completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also
under consideration by the IESG.

As a result, upon approval of this document, IANA has NO ADDITIONAL actions
other than those outlined in the companion document draft-ietf-nfsv4-
minorversion1-26.
2008-12-03
12 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-03
12 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
>  In order to facilitate implementations that support both
  NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, the description includes operations, and other
  features of NFSv4.0 …
[Ballot comment]
>  In order to facilitate implementations that support both
  NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, the description includes operations, and other
  features of NFSv4.0 that do not apply to NFSv4.1.

If the descriptin in this document covers operations and features from NFSv4.0 than RFC 3530 should be a normative reference.
2008-12-03
12 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
>  In order to facilitate implementations that support both
  NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, the description includes operations, and other
  features of NFSv4.0 …
[Ballot comment]
>  In order to facilitate implementations that support both
  NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, the description includes operations, and other
  features of NFSv4.0 that do not apply to NFSv4.1.

If this description includes operations and features from NFSv4.0 than RFC 3530 should be included in the lest of references
2008-12-02
12 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-12-02
12 Cullen Jennings [Ballot discuss]
The license of this code should be made clear.
2008-12-01
12 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot discuss]
I think this document should specify which document, this or the main spec, is the normative version if a conflict is found between …
[Ballot discuss]
I think this document should specify which document, this or the main spec, is the normative version if a conflict is found between the two.

The license of this code should be made very clear. I don't know if the new IPR rules  makes that easier or harder.
2008-12-01
12 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-11-28
12 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2008-11-27
12 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-22
12 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2008-11-22
12 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2008-11-22
12 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2008-10-21
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson
2008-10-21
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson
2008-10-14
12 Lars Eggert Tentatively putting this on the 2008-12-06 agenda as an early warning to others to keep the agenda otherwise light.
2008-10-14
12 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Lars Eggert
2008-09-23
12 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-09-23
12 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-09-22
12 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2008-09-22
12 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2008-09-22
12 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-09-22
12 (System) Last call text was added
2008-09-22
12 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-09-22
12 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Brian Pawslowski (beepy@netapp.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Lars Eggert
2008-09-22
12 Lars Eggert Brian Pawslowski (beepy@netapp.com) is the document shepherd, although the document writeup names Spencer Shepler - but Spencer is a co-editor.
2008-09-19
12 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2008-09-19
12 Lars Eggert AD evaluation performed during WG LC.
2008-09-18
12 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document represents the NFSv4.1 protocol as specified in
XDR. The main NFSv4.1 document has received many formal reviews
and this document as well as a result.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No concerns exist.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No such concerns exist.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the NFSv4 working group.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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 strategy for
their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these
downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

Yes.

Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a
reasonable name for the new registry?

Yes.

See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

N/A

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This Internet-Draft provides the XDR description for NFSv4
minor version one.

Working Group Summary

This document is the result of long construction, review, and
prototyping. While not all features of the main
specification of NFSv4.1 (and as a result this document) have
been prototyped or implemented the mainline features have
received reasonable prototyping.

Document Quality

The NFSv4.1 specification was subjected to a series of formal
reviews or walk-throughs that resulted in close review and
resultant issues and resolutions. As a result, the NFSv4.1
documents are complete and of reasonably high quality.
2008-09-18
12 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-09-05
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-09.txt
2008-08-21
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-08.txt
2008-08-06
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-07.txt
2008-05-12
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-06.txt
2008-05-02
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-05.txt
2008-02-25
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-04.txt
2008-01-29
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-03.txt
2007-12-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-02.txt
2007-11-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-01.txt
2007-11-12
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-00.txt