Shepherd writeup

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

(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


   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.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

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.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?


(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. 


(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 

(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.


(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.