Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13

[Ballot comment]
This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me, the new text in -13,

"An Upper Layer Binding specifies this agreement for one version or more versions of one RPC program"

would be less clunky it read "one or more versions".

I know we talked about that on e-mail, so I'm just adding this to my Yes ballot so *I* remember to check for it!

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

there are three entries for port number 20049 in support of Network File System (NFS) over RDMA. We understand that the current draft obsoletes the RFC that created these three port number registrations. As a result, the reference for the TCP, UDP, and SCTP registrations for port number 20049 should be change from [ RFC5666 ] to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Network File System (NFS)
Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version
  1'
  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 2017-08-24. 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 specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System
  (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA version 1, enabling the use
  of Direct Data Placement.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/ballot/


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

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11

(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

(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 document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System
  (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA Version One, enabling the
  use of Direct Data Placement.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little to no
  contention over the approach and resultant content.

Document Quality

  The quality of this document is high and is ready to move forward.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
 
(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.

Full document was reviewed by the shepherd and the I-D is ready.

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

No concerns.

(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.

(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 additional concerns.

(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.

N/A

(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? 

Full consensus from the WG 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.)

N/A

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are a few nits that will be easily updated during future updates based on IESG
feedback or during AUTH48 edits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(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?

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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.

This is a "bis" or replacement for 5667.

(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).

IANA section is a carry-forward of the existing RFC 5667 and is still 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.

N/A

(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.

N/A