Remote Direct Memory Access - Connection Manager (RDMA-CM) Private Data for RPC-over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-06-22
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-06-15
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-03-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-03-03
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-03-03
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-03-02
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-03-02
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-03-02
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-03-02
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-03-02
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-03-02
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-03-02
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-03-02
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-03-02
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-03-02
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-02-23
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point and editorial comments. |
2020-02-23
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-02-21
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-02-21
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-02-21
|
08 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-08.txt |
2020-02-21
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-21
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2020-02-21
|
08 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-21
|
08 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-20
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-02-20
|
07 | Yaron Sheffer | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024, I think … [Ballot comment] I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024, I think the appropriate range needs to be 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024 I think … [Ballot comment] I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you are using division by 1024 I think the appropriate range needs to be 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I agree with Alissa. Section 4 For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the CM Private Data field is formatted as described in the … [Ballot comment] I agree with Alissa. Section 4 For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the CM Private Data field is formatted as described in the following subsection. RPC clients and servers use the same format. If the capacity of the Private Data field is too small to contain this message format, the underlying RDMA transport is not managed by a Connection Manager, or the underlying RDMA transport uses Private Data for its own purposes, the CM Private Data field cannot be used on behalf of RPC-over-RDMA version 1. How will an implementation know if "the underlying RDMA transport uses Private Data for its own purposes"? Section 5 Although it is possible to reorganize the last three of the eight bytes in the existing format, extended formats are unlikely to do so. New formats would take the form of extensions of the format described in this document with added fields starting at byte eight of the format and changes to the definition of previously reserved flags. I would suggest making it a (mandatory) invariant of this format to retain these last three bytes' interpretation, requiring the use of a different "magic word" for future versions that need to diverge from it. The current text does not really give an implementation anything that it can rely on. Section 6 The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol framework depends on the semantics of the Reliable Connected (RC) queue pair (QP) type, as defined in Section 9.7.7 of [IBA]. The integrity of CM Private Data It's interesting to see such a reference to [IBA], when IIUC the RFC 8166 protocol is not limited to Infiniband as the underlying transport. Additional analysis of RDMA transport security appears in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5042]. That document nit: the actual analysis isn't *in* the security considerations section (but is referenced from it). Improperly setting one of the fields in a version 1 Private Message can result in an increased risk of disconnection (i.e., self-imposed Denial of Service). There is no additional risk of exposing upper- layer payloads after exchanging the Private Message format defined in the current document. I'm not entirely sure where or how one might have expected such additional exposures to occur. We should probably mention the risk that some (other) CM-private data item might inadvertenly produce in its payload the "magic number" that we use to identify this protocol's data structure. I *think* (but please confirm) that erroneously doing so would lead only to (likely) RDMA-channel disconnection and could not introduce (e.g.) data corruption. In addition to describing the structure of a new format version, any document that extends the Private Data format described in the current document must discuss security considerations of new data items exchanged between connection peers. In a similar vein, future extensions should consider what the risks of erroneously identifying "random" data as the new format would be. Section 7 Should the registry also include the length of the private data? Similarly to the previous section's comments, should prospective registrations also be analyzing the risks to their protocol of interpreting "random" data as the data structure (as would happen upon an inadvertent match of the "magic number")? Section 7.1 The new Reference field should contain a reference to that documentation. The DE can assign new Format Identifiers at random as long as they do not conflict with existing entries in this registry. Random may not be the best choice for this, if there are ways to produce values that are less-likely-than-random to occur inadvertently in the payload of any of the registered formats. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document." … [Ballot comment] Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document." I have skimmed the document for typical ART-area gotchas, and found none. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section 7.1 makes it sound like the proper registration … [Ballot comment] I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section 7.1 makes it sound like the proper registration policy is actually Specification Required, not Expert Review. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thanks for all of the changes made in response to the LC SECDIR review. Also, thank you for the LC SECDIR review, Yaron … [Ballot comment] Thanks for all of the changes made in response to the LC SECDIR review. Also, thank you for the LC SECDIR review, Yaron (Sheffer)! Section 6. As there is dependence on the behavior defined in [IBA], this reference should be normative. |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] One quick thought/comment: Another option for extensibility would be to use one of the reserved flags to e.g. extend the fields of the … [Ballot comment] One quick thought/comment: Another option for extensibility would be to use one of the reserved flags to e.g. extend the fields of the private data field. However, the draft states at all reserved flags need to be zero with version 1. This seems to be a bit of a waste of space but moreover it's a lost opportunity for an easy way to extend the private data field. Why was that decided? |
2020-02-19
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-02-16
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I found this document not so easy to read as many acronyms are used … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I found this document not so easy to read as many acronyms are used without expansion (Stag, CM, ...) notably in the abstract. While the introduction simply refers to RFC 8166, a little more textual introduction would have been welcome. Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate a response from the authors but this is not required). I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 4 -- Just by sheer curiosity, I wonder where the value "0xf6ab0e18" comes from ? -- Section 4.1.1 -- "bit 15 of the Flags field" but the Flags field is only 8-bit long (to be honest, I am sure that I understand the meaning of this but being clearer would be better). Wording in section 5.1 should be used in section 4 when describing the Flags field. I would also suggest to name the different bits of the Flags field as usually done in other IETF documents. -- Section 5.1 -- About the reserved bits, why not using the usual wording of "set to 0 when sending and ignored when received" ? |
2020-02-16
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-02-14
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-02-13
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry’s DISCUSS. |
2020-02-13
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2020-02-13
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-02-13
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very easy to resolve: — Section 5.2 — A … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very easy to resolve: — Section 5.2 — A sender computes the encoded value by dividing the buffer size, in octets, by 1024 and subtracting one from the result. Is the buffer size necessarily a multiple of 1024? If so, where is that specified? If not, what is the encoded value when the buffer size is, say, 2000? Is it zero? Or one? |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Some purely editorial comments: — Abstract — The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the abstract. … [Ballot comment] Some purely editorial comments: — Abstract — The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the abstract. (RPC doesn’t need expanding, so once you’ve expanded RDMA-CM, RPC-over-RDMA should be OK.) — Introduction — Please expand “XDR” on first use. Section 7 of the current document “of this document” is better, I think. — Section 3.2 — Please expand “RNIC” and “STag”. invalidation without the need for additional protocol to be defined. Either “an additional protocol” or “additional protocols”. — Section 4.1 — Realizing these goals require that implementations of this extension follow the practices The subject is “realizing”, which is singular. So, “requires’. — Section 5.1 — Bits 14 - 8: These bits are reserved and are always zero when the Version field contains 1. In other protocols, leaving it unspecified as to what happens if not all reserved bits are zero has caused interoperability problems. If you know that’s not a concern here, that’s fine. Otherwise, it might be good to say explicitly that either they are ignored on receipt or non-zero bits result in an error. |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-02-20 |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot has been issued |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-02-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-02-10
|
07 | Niclas Comstedt | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt. |
2020-01-31
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-01-31
|
07 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07.txt |
2020-01-31
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-31
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2020-01-31
|
07 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-31
|
07 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-30
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2020-01-27
|
06 | Niclas Comstedt | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-27
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar. |
2020-01-27
|
06 | Suhas Nandakumar | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-27
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-01-26
|
06 | Yaron Sheffer | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-24
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-24
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. A new registry is to be created called the RDMA-CM Private Data Identifier Registry. The new registry is to be created on the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rddp/ The new registry is to be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 8126. There is a single registration as an initial value in the new registry as follows: +------------------+------------------------------------+-------------+ | Format | Format Description | Reference | | Identifier | | | +------------------+------------------------------------+-------------+ | 0xf6ab0e18 | RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private |[ RFC-to-be ]| | | Data | | +------------------+------------------------------------+-------------+ The IANA Functions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-01-19
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2020-01-19
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2020-01-19
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-01-19
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-01-16
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar |
2020-01-16
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, Brian Pawlowski , beepee@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Spencer Shepler , magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, Brian Pawlowski , beepee@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, Thomas Haynes , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For 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: - 'RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-01-27. 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 This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an optional extension that does not alter the RPC- over-RDMA version 1 protocol. This document updates RFC 8166. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Last call was requested |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-01-13
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-01-02
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-01-02
|
06 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06.txt |
2020-01-02
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-02
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2020-01-02
|
06 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-02
|
06 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-02
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Waiting for one more set of changes to address Expert Review before IETF last call. |
2020-01-02
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-11-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-05.txt |
2019-11-15
|
05 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2019-11-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2019-11-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-11-04
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version … Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04 (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? This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document. (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 the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present. Working Group Summary The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious. Document Quality This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area. This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation Personnel Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund 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. As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of the working group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continued interest in completing the release of this specification. This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it is needed and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection. (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 special review is required 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. There are no concerns 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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmed at last face-to-face meeting. (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. Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated. These can be done during final edits, if required. (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. No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations. (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 registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document. (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 |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Responsible AD changed to Magnus Westerlund |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-31
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-10-30
|
04 | Brian Pawlowski | Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version … Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04 (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? This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document. (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 the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present. Working Group Summary The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious. Document Quality This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area. This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation Personnel Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund 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. As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of the working group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continued interest in completing the release of this specification. This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it is needed and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection. (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 special review is required 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. There are no concerns 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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmed at last face-to-face meeting. (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. Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated. These can be done during final edits, if required. (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. No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations. (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 registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document. (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 |
2019-10-30
|
04 | Brian Pawlowski | Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version … Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Magnus Westerlund Document Author: Chuck Lever Document Shepherd: Brian Pawlowski Internet Draft: RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04 (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? This document is a standards track document and represents an optional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166]. It does not replace that document. (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 the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not require the payload to be present. Working Group Summary The working group was aligned on this work and it moved through the review process with good input but nothing contentious. Document Quality This document represents input from the NFSv4 community with long standing experience. The authors represent the quality work of the working group and are trusted in the community with their experience and abilty to draft quality, useful text. Key comments and reviewers included Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this approach, and Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for extensive review. All are experts in this technical area. This document reflects the experience of implementation and deployment in the Linux NFS client and server both support the message format specified in the document. Support was merged in fall of 2019 with Linux v4.9. Other implementations have expressed interest in adopting the work, including the support for Remote Invalidation Personnel Brian Pawlowski is the document shepherd. Magnus Westerlund 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. As shepherd, I have read and reviewed the document as part of the working group last call. I have discussed the document with the author, and my co-chair and reaffirmed during our last WG meeting that there is continued interest in completing the release of this specification. This version of the document is ready for review by the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As shepherd, I have no concerns about the document and believe it is needed and adds value to the overall NFSv4 RFC collection. (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 special review is required 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. There are no concerns 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. 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? The working group is supportive of this document without exception. Affirmed at last face-to-face meeting. (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. Minor copyright dates and minor issues will need to be updated. These can be done during final edits, if required. (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. No changes to existing RFCs, RFC 8166 interoperability is described in detail on how the extension co-exists with unmodified implementations. (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 registry addition has been clearly identified and described by the document. (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 |
2019-10-02
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com> from Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, … Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>, Brian Pawlowski <beepee@gmail.com> from Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> |
2019-10-02
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Brian Pawlowski |
2019-09-14
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> from Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> |
2019-09-14
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Haynes |
2019-07-17
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> |
2019-07-17
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler |
2019-07-17
|
04 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2019-06-13
|
04 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04.txt |
2019-06-13
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-13
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2019-06-13
|
04 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-13
|
04 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-13
|
03 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-03.txt |
2019-06-13
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-13
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2019-06-13
|
03 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-13
|
03 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-05
|
02 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-02.txt |
2019-05-05
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-05
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2019-05-05
|
02 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-05
|
02 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-06
|
01 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-01.txt |
2018-11-06
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-06
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever |
2018-11-06
|
01 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-25
|
00 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-00.txt |
2018-07-25
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-07-25
|
00 | Chuck Lever | Set submitter to "Charles Lever ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-07-25
|
00 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |