Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor Versions
draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-11

[Ballot comment]
I suspect this was discussed as part of the document's development, but it's clear that this new approach to versioning presents new challenges for preventing collisions of numeric constants and bitmap bit meanings. Previously (by my understanding; this isn't my area), minor versions included a full XDR, and therefore effectively carried their own complete and hermetically-sealed registry with them. With the new approach, additional documents may extend the XDR independently. I understand that IANA registration of the various codepoints in NFS is probably too daunting a task to consider reasonable, and that there is effectively an understanding in the working group that future extensions to a minor version are responsible for checking that they don't conflict with any published or pending extensions prior to publication. I don't have an issue with this approach per se, but I think it should be more clearly spelled out in this document.

Editorial:

- The document uses both "interversion" and "inter-version" -- please choose one and stick with it.

- As section 8 is targeted at an audience that may not be concerned with the remainder of the document, I would suggest that the introduction specifically point implementors to it.

- The first bullet under "Based on the type of server" in section 9.2 says older servers can only interoperate with older clients; when, in fact, they can clearly operate with newer clients described by the third bullet of "Based on the type of client:". Recommend: "...interoperate with clients implementing the older version. However, clients that do not implement the older version of the feature..."

[Ballot comment]
(Updated):

Please have a look at comments raised in ARTART Directorate review:

This is one of the most comprehensive documents on versionning/extensibility that I've seen. It is probably overkill for many other protocols, but I am glad that you wrote it for NFSv4+.

I only have a few minor comments:

In Section 6:

  Extensions to the most recently published NFSv4 minor version may be
  made by publishing the extension as a Proposed Standard, unless the
  minor version in question has been defined as non-extensible.  A
  document need not update the document defining the minor version,

Do you mean "need not update" in the sense of not using "Updates" header in the resulting RFC? If yes, I think you should make it clearer.

  which remains a valid description of the base variant of the minor
  version in question.

In Section 8:

  This section addresses issues related to rules #11 and #13 in the
  minor versioning rules in [RFC5661].

It would be good to add section number reference here (Section 2.7), to save readers troubles trying to figure out what #11 and #13 mean.

[Ballot comment]
It looks like the author has proposed a number of edits in response to the gen-art review, and I'd like to see those incorporated into the next version.

I do not think this document needs to formally update RFC 7530.

[Ballot comment]
This is one of the most comprehensive documents on versionning/extensibility that I've seen. It is probably overkill for many other protocols, but I am glad that you wrote it for NFSv4+.

I only have a few minor comments:

In Section 6:

  Extensions to the most recently published NFSv4 minor version may be
  made by publishing the extension as a Proposed Standard, unless the
  minor version in question has been defined as non-extensible.  A
  document need not update the document defining the minor version,

Do you mean "need not update" in the sense of not using "Updates" header in the resulting RFC? If yes, I think you should make it clearer.

  which remains a valid description of the base variant of the minor
  version in question.

In Section 8:

  This section addresses issues related to rules #11 and #13 in the
  minor versioning rules in [RFC5661].

It would be good to add section number reference here (Section 2.7), to save readers troubles trying to figure out what #11 and #13 mean.

[Ballot comment]
Russ Housley has provided a Gen-ART review for -09 version of this document, and the author is responding to those comments.

I did have one question that came up during AD Evaluation that I wanted to mention.

The first two drafts that used this mechanism (umask and xattrs) used two different idioms for discovering support. The xaddrs draft defines an xaddr_support attribute, while umask does not.

In conversations with the working group, the reasoning was that xattrs defines a number of operations, so discovering that the complete mechanism is supported before you start trying to use the attributes makes sense, while umask defines only one attribute, and for any attribute, you can find out if it is supported within a given file system by interrogating the appropriate bit position in the REQUIRED attribute supported_attrs, so there is no advantage to adding a umask_support attribute.

That all made perfect sense to me, but the explanation was helpful enough to me that I wonder if it's worth a sentence or two, pointing out that some protocol designers may choose one idiom, while other protocol designers choose the other, and saying that's not a problem.

If the answer is "that explanation isn't needed", that won't change my ballot position from Yes, of course.

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor Versions) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor Versions'
  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 2017-05-12. 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


  This document describes the rules relating to the extension of the
  NFSv4 family of protocols.  It covers the creation of minor versions,
  the addition of optional features to existing minor versions, and the
  correction of flaws in features already published as Proposed
  Standards.  The rules relating to the construction of minor versions
  and the interaction of minor version implementations that appear in
  this document supersede the minor versioning rules in RFC5661 and
  other RFCs defining minor versions.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning/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-versioning-09.txt

(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 describes the rules relating to the extension of the
  NFSv4 family of protocols.  It covers the creation of minor versions,
  the addition of optional features to existing minor versions, and the
  correction of flaws in features already published as Proposed
  Standards.  The rules relating to the construction of minor versions
  and the interaction of minor version implementations that appear in
  this document supersede the minor versioning rules in RFC5661 and
  other RFCs defining minor versions.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little to no
  contention over the approach and resultant content.  In fact, as a
  demonstration of support, there are two I-Ds that are being submitted
  along side this I-D that use the minor version feature enablement
  described within.

Document Quality

  The quality of this document is high and is ready to move forward.
  It has received good review within the working group and the author is
  very familiar with the material and the style of the group.

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.

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).

N/A

(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