Parallel NFS (pNFS) Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) Layout
draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-10

[Ballot comment]
Nits:

1) Maybe spell out what RFC5663 is about...?
OLD:
"[RFC6688] is unnecessary in the context of the SCSI layout type because the new
  layout type provides mandatory disk access protection as part of the
  layout type definition."
NEW
"pNFS Block Disk Protection [RFC6688] is unnecessary in the context
  of the SCSI layout type because the new layout type provides mandatory
  disk access protection as part of the layout type definition."

2) Why is this not a MUST?
"Since SCSI storage devices are generally not capable of enforcing
  such file-based security, in environments where pNFS clients cannot
  be trusted to enforce such policies, pNFS SCSI layouts SHOULD NOT be
  used."

3) "Storage devices such as storage arrays can have multiple physical
  network ports that need not be connected to a common network"
Should this be network interfaces instead on network ports?

4) "The client SHOULD track the number of
  retries, and if forward progress is not made, the client should
  abandon the attempt to get a layout and perform READ and WRITE
  operations by sending them to the server"
Should the second 'should' also be upper case?
I believe there are actually more cases (at least in this section) where upper case SHOULDs and MAYs could be used. Please check!

[Ballot comment]

- 1.4: (A question for the IESG/RFC editor and not the
document authors.) How will shell scripts like this be
affected by new RFC formats?  Have we thought about whether
that'll work? Maybe the text here (and in similar cases) ought
in future say that it's the plain ascii form of the RFC that
needs to be fed into the script, as odd things may happen with
other formats. (Note: I don't think this document ought be
held up while that is discussed, if discussion is needed.)

- 2.4.10: MDS is used without expansion or reference. A very
quick search didn't help me figure out for sure what that
means btw;-) Is it metadata-server?

- 2.4.10: is "device device ID" a typo?

- section 6: Is the SAM-5 reference correct? Is the XXXXX
something that the RFC editor will need to fix? If so, that
probably should be noted in the document so it's not
forgotten. If the XXXXX means that that's a draft that's not
yet final then you probably also need to tell the RFC editor
to wait until the final document is published.

[Ballot comment]
For the security considerations, it would be good to include a few examples of the security provided by iSCSI, like encryption via IPsec (tunnel and transport mode - IMO opinion this RFC makes it difficult to set this up in an interoperable way, but that's not the responsibility of this draft), authentication, etc.  RFC7143 is such a large document, just a pointer isn't as helpful here in comparison to the no security example.  This is just at the comment level since the pointer is technically sufficient, but sets one up for a lot of reading.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the pNFS Layout Types Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pnfs-layout-types/

a single new layout type is to be registered as follows:

Layout Type Name: LAYOUT4_SCSI
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
RFC: [ RFC-to-be ]
How: L
Minor Versions: 1

IANA notes that the authors have suggested the value 5 for this registration (0x00000005).

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA 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 Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" , spencer.shepler@gmail.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout'
  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 2016-07-12. 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 a separation between
  the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage
  device) for a file.  The SCSI Layout Type is defined in this document
  as an extension to pNFS to allow the use SCSI based block storage
  devices.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout/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-scsi-layout-05


(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

  The NFS version 4.1 parallel Network File System (pNFS) feature
  allows a separation between the metadata (onto a metadata server)
  and data (onto a storage device) for a file.  The SCSI Layout Type
  is defined in this document as an extension to NFSv4.1 to allow the
  use SCSI based block storage devices.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little
  contention over the approach represented within.  This work is
  backed by implementation experience by the author in the Linux
  implementation.  The Internet Draft, during its development, received
  review and comments -- resulting in necessary changes and moving
  towards working group consensus.
 
Document Quality

  As mentioned above, there is an implementation of this protocol "extension"
  and this was the main reason for the existing of the I-D -- to bring
  that experience and implementation to the broader NFSv4 community.
  Given the individuals that reviewed and provided feedback, the overall
  quality of the document is very good.

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.

  I have reviewed the document and followed the creation and review
  process within the working group.  This document is ready to move forward
  to IESG review.

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

  No concerns from the Shepherd.

(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.

  Given the content and context of the document, no broader review is required
  but certainly appreciated if during IESG review it is found that other areas
  of the IETF have particular interest or expertise that is applicable to
  the SCSI constructs used to extend NFSv4.1.

(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 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.

  No disclosures have been filed.

(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? 

  Strong consensus within the working group 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.)

  No outstanding issues of this type exist.

(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.

  Some minor nits and copyright date updates that the author will
  correct during IESG reviews, etc.

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

  None applicable.

(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?

  All normative references exist.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

(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).

  Not 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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.