[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
NFSv4 Working Group                                      David L. Black
Internet Draft                                         Stephen Fridella
Expires: December 2005                                  EMC Corporation
                                                           June 3, 2005



                         pNFS Block/Volume Layout
                       draft-black-pnfs-block-00.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire in December 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Parallel NFS (pNFS) extends NFSv4 to allow clients to directly access
   file data on the storage used by the NFSv4 server.  This ability to
   bypass the server for data access can increase both performance and
   parallelism, but requires additional client functionality for data
   access, some of which is dependent on the class of storage used.  The



Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   main pNFS operations draft specifies storage-class-independent
   extensions to NFS; this draft specifies the additional extensions
   (primarily data structures) for use of pNFS with block and volume
   based storage.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Background and Architecture....................................3
      2.1. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists.................4
         2.1.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists.....................6
         2.1.2. Extents Have Lock-like Behavior......................6
      2.2. Volume Identification.....................................7
   3. Operations Issues..............................................9
      3.1. Ordering Issues..........................................10
      3.2. Crash Recovery Issues....................................11
      3.3. Additional Features - Not Needed or Recommended..........12
   4. Security Considerations.......................................12
   5. Conclusions...................................................13
   6. Acknowledgments...............................................13
   7. References....................................................13
      7.1. Normative References.....................................13
      7.2. Informative References...................................14
   Author's Addresses...............................................14
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................14
   Disclaimer of Validity...........................................15
   Copyright Statement..............................................15
   Acknowledgment...................................................15

   NOTE: This is an early stage draft.  It's still rough in places, with
   significant work to be done.











Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005



1. Introduction

   Figure 1 shows the overall architecture of a pNFS system:

       +-----------+
       |+-----------+                                 +-----------+
       ||+-----------+                                |           |
       |||           |        NFSv4 + pNFS            |           |
       +||  Clients  |<------------------------------>|   Server  |
        +|           |                                |           |
         +-----------+                                |           |
              |||                                     +-----------+
              |||                                           |
              |||                                           |
              |||                +-----------+              |
              |||                |+-----------+             |
              ||+----------------||+-----------+            |
              |+-----------------|||           |            |
              +------------------+||  Storage  |------------+
                                  +|  Systems  |
                                   +-----------+

                        Figure 1 pNFS Architecture

   The overall approach is that pNFS-enhanced clients obtain sufficient
   information from the server to enable them to access the underlying
   storage (on the Storage Systems) directly.  See [WELCH-OPS] for more
   details.  This draft is concerned with access from pNFS clients to
   Storage Systems over storage protocols based on blocks and volumes,
   such as the SCSI protocol family (e.g., parallel SCSI, FCP for Fibre
   Channel, iSCSI, SAS).  This class of storage is referred to as
   block/volume storage.  While the Server to Storage System protocol is
   not of concern for interoperability here, it will typically also be a
   block/volume protocol when clients use block/volume protocols.

2. Background and Architecture

   The fundamental storage abstraction supported by block/volume storage
   is a storage volume consisting of a sequential series of fixed size
   blocks.  This can be thought of as a logical disk; it may be realized
   by the Storage System as a physical disk, a portion of a physical
   disk or something more complex (e.g., concatenation, striping, RAID,
   and combinations thereof) involving multiple physical disks or
   portions thereof.




Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   A pNFS layout for this block/volume class of storage is responsible
   for mapping from an NFS file (or portion of a file) to the blocks of
   storage volumes that contain the file.  The blocks are expressed as
   extents with 64 bit offsets and lengths using the existing NFSv4
   offset4 and length4 types.  Clients must be able to perform I/O to
   the block extents without affecting additional areas of storage
   (especially important for writes), therefore extents MUST be aligned
   to 512-byte boundaries, and SHOULD be aligned to the block size used
   by the NFSv4 server in managing the actual filesystem (4 kilobytes
   and 8 kilobytes are common block sizes).

   OPEN ISSUE: Client ability to ask server for block size - if block
   size is constant per filesystem (fsid), it can enable internal client
   optimizations.  Constant filesystem block size is probably the common
   case - an additional (required) FS attribute would suffice.

   This draft draws extensively on the authors' familiarity with the the
   mapping functionality and protocol in EMC's HighRoad system.  The
   protocol used by HighRoad is called FMP (File Mapping Protocol); it
   is an add-on protocol that runs in parallel with filesystem protocols
   such as NFSv3 to provide pNFS-like functionality for block/volume
   storage.  While drawing on HighRoad FMP, the data structures and
   functional considerations in this draft differ in significant ways,
   based on lessons learned and the opportunity to take advantage of
   NFSv4 features such as COMPOUND operations.

2.1. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists

   A pNFS layout is a list of extents with associated properties. EAch
   extent MUST be at least 512-byte aligned.

   struct extent {

     offset4      file_offset;/* the logical location in the file */

     length4      extent_length; /* the size of this extent in file and
                                    and on storage */

     pnfs_deviceid4  volume_ID;  /* the logical volume/physical device
                                    that this extent is on */

     offset4      storage_offset;/* the logical location of
                                 this extent in the volume */

     extentState4    es;   /* the state of this extent */

   };


Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005






   enum extentState4 {

     VALID_DATA = 0, /* the data located by this extent is valid for
                        reading and writing. */

     INVALID_DATA = 1,  /* the location is valid; the data is invalid.
                           It could be overwritten by the valid data.
                           It is a newly (pre-) allocated extent. There
                           is physical space. */

     NONE_DATA = 2,  /* the location is invalid. It is a hole in the
                        file. There is no physical space. */

     };

   The file_offset, extent_length, and es fields for an extent returned
   from the server are always valid. The interpretation of the
   storage_offset field depends on the value of es as follows:

   o  VALID_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, and points to
      valid/initialized data which can and should be fetched from the
      disk to satisfy read requests (and partial-block write requests).

   o  INVALID_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, but points to
      invalid uninitialized data. This data must not be physically read
      from the disk until it has been initialized. Read request from an
      INVALID_DATA extent, must fill the user buffer with zeros. Write
      requests must write whole blocks to the disk. Bytes not
      initialized by the user must be set to zero. INVALID_DATA extents
      are returned by requests for writeable extents; they are never
      returned if the request was only for reading..

   o  NONE_DATA means that storage_offset is not valid, and this extent
      may not be used to satisfy write requests. Read requests may be
      satisfied by zero-filling as for INVALID_DATA. NONE_DATA extents
      are returned by requests for readable extents; they are never
      returned if the request was for a writeable extent.

   The volume_ID field for an extent returned by the server is used to
   identify the logical volume on which this extent resides, and its
   interpretation depends on the volume-management protocol being used
   by the client and server.



Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   The extent list lists all relevant extents in increasing order of the
   file_offset of each extent.

   typedef extent extentList<MAX_EXTENTS>;  /* MAX_EXTENTS = 256; */

2.1.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists

   Each request for a layout specifies at least three parameters:
   offset, desired size, and minimum size (the desired size is missing
   from the operations draft - see Section 3).  If the status of a
   request indicates success, the extent list returned must meet the
   following criteria:

   o  A request for a readable (but not writeable layout returns only
      VALID_DATA or NONE_DATA extents (but not INVALID_DATA extents).

   o  A request for a writeable layout returns only VALID_DATA or
      INVALID_DATA extents (but not NONE_DATA extents).

   o  The first extent in the list MUST contain the starting offset.

   o  The total size of extents in the extent list MUST cover at least
      the minimum size and no more than the desired size.  One exception
      is allowed: the total size MAY be smaller if only readable extents
      were requested and EOF is encountered.

   o  Extents in the extent list MUST be logically contiguous and non-
      overlapping).

2.1.2. Extents Have Lock-like Behavior

   Extents returned to pNFS clients function as locks in that they grant
   clients permission to read or write.  Both read/write and write/write
   conflicts must be controlled by the pNFS server as a read/write
   conflict may cause a read to return a mixture of before-write and
   after-write data from a block-based storage system and a write/write
   conflict may cause the result on the block-based storage system to be
   a mixture of data from the two write operations; both of these
   outcomes are unacceptable, as in the absence of pNFS, the NFSv4
   server would have correctly sequenced the conflicting operations to
   avoid this mixing.  This is particularly nasty if the underlying
   storage is striped and the operations complete in different orders on
   the different stripes.

   A client which makes a layout request that conflicts with an existing
   layout delegation will be rejected with the error NFS4_Locked
   (OPEN_ISSUE: New error code needed?).  This client is then expected


Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   to retry the request after a short interval.  During this interval
   the server needs to recall the conflicting portion of the layout
   delegation from the client that currently holds it.  It has been
   noted that this mode of reject/retry operation does not prevent a
   requesting client from being starved when there is contention for the
   layout of a particular file.  For this reason a pNFS server SHOULD
   implement a mechanism to prevent starvation.  One possibility is that
   the server can maintain a queue of rejected layout requests.  Each
   new layout request can be checked to see if it conflicts with a
   previous rejected request, and if so, the newer request can be
   rejected. Once the original requesting client retries its request,
   its entry in the rejected request queue can be cleared, or the entry
   in the rejected request queue can be removed when it reaches a
   certain age.

   NFSv4 supports mandatory locks and share reservations.  These are
   mechanisms that clients can use to restrict the set of IO operations
   that are permissible to other clients.  Since all IO operations
   ultimately arrive at the NFSv4 server for processing, the server is
   in a position to enforce these restrictions.  However, with pNFS
   layout delegations, IOs will be issued from the clients that hold the
   delegations directly to the storage devices that host the data.
   These devices have no knowledge of files, mandatory locks, or share
   reservations, and are not in a position to enforce such restrictions.
   For this reason the NFSv4 server must not grant layout delegations
   that conflict with mandatory locks or share reservations.
   Furthermore, if a conflicting mandatory lock request or a conflicting
   open request arrives at the server, the server must recall the part
   of the layout delegation in conflict with the request before
   processing the request.

2.2. Volume Identification

   Storage Systems such as storage arrays can have multiple physical
   network ports that need not be connected to a common network,
   resulting in a pNFS client having simultaneous multipath access to
   the same storage volumes via different ports on different networks.
   The networks may not even be the same technology - for example,
   access to the same volume via both iSCSI and Fibre Channel is
   possible, hence network address are difficult to use for volume
   identification.  For this reason, this pNFS block layout identifies
   storage volumes by content, for example providing the means to match
   (unique portions of) labels used by volume managers.  Any block pNFS
   system using this layout MUST support a means of content-based unique
   volume identification that can be employed via the data structure
   given here.



Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   A volume is content-identified by a disk signature made up of extents
   within blocks and contents that must match.

   block_device_addr_list - A list of the disk signatures for the
   physical volumes on which the file system resides. This is list of
   variable number of diskSigInfo structures.  This is the
   device_addr_list<> as returned by GETDEVICELIST in [WELCH-OPS]

   typedef diskSigInfo block_device_addr_list<MAX_DEVICE>;
            /* disksignature  info */

   where diskSigInfo is:

   struct diskSigInfo {       /* used in DISK_SIGNATURE */
      diskSig        ds;      /* disk signature */

      pnfs_deviceid4 volume_ID;  /* volume ID the server will use in
                                    extents. */

   };

   where diskSig is defined as:

   typedef sigComp diskSig<MAX_SIG_COMPONENTS>;

   struct sigComp {        /*  disk signature component */

      offset4  sig_offset; /* byte offset of component */

      length4  sig_length; /* byte length of component */

      sigCompContents contents;  /* contents of this component of the
                                    signature (this is opaque) */

   };

   sigCompContents MUST NOT be interpreted as a zero-terminated string,
   as it may contain embedded zero-valued octets.  It contains
   sig_length octets.  There are no restrictions on alignment (e.g.,
   neither sig_offset nor sig_length need to be multiples of 4).









Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


3. Operations Issues

   This section collects issues in the operations draft encountered in
   writing this block/volume layout draft.

   1. Request for a layout (LAYOUTGET) only conveys minimum required
      size - for the block storage class, a desired size is also useful.
      This allows the client to ask for a good size for performance but
      allow the server to reduce the size when other clients are
      actively writing different areas of the file for conflict
      management.

   2. The operations draft treats a layout returned by an operation as
      an indivisible object (at least for callback and return - commit
      seems to only be able to handle one extent).  For block storage
      layouts, it is important to be able to recall, commit, or return a
      portion of a layout.  The server needs to be in control of the
      conflict granularity to minimize the impact of false sharing, and
      the client needs to be able to manage its layout state in a
      flexible fashion.

   3. Need a callback to set EOF.  The underlying issue here is that
      block pNFS clients have to handle EOF enforcement because the
      Storage Systems have no concept of file, let alone EOF.  Hence
      client interactions based on EOF changes (e.g., one client
      truncates file, another tries to write beyond new EOF) require
      updates to tell clients that the EOF has moved.  Calling back
      layouts beyond the new EOF to force the client to check for EOF
      change is both inefficient and overkill.

   4. HighRoad supports three additional types of layout recalls -
      "everything in a file", "everything in a list of files",
      "everything in a filesystem".  HighRoad also supports an
      "everything in a file" layout return.  The "everything in a file"
      type is very convenient to get rid of all state for a file.  The
      "everything in a filesystem" is crucial to get unmount of a busy
      filesystem to actually work.  The "everything in a list of files"
      turns out to be useful for quota situations, although it's a bit
      blunt - when a user is nearing her quota, recall her writeable
      layouts to force the commits needed to manage the quota.  OPEN
      ISSUE: This may not be the best way to handle approaching a quota
      limit.

   5. Access and Modify time behavior.  Any LAYOUTCOMMIT operation
      should implicitly set both the Access and Modify times.
      LAYOUTRETURN needs flags saying whether to set Access time or
      Access and Modify times or neither.


Black                   Expires December 2005                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   6. The disk signature approach to volume identification is noted in
      the [WELCH-OPS] draft, but the data structures in the -01 version
      of that draft do not support it.

3.1. Ordering Issues

   This deserves its own subsection because there is some serious
   subtlety here.  High Road uses two mechanisms for ordering:

   1. In contrast to NFSv4 callbacks that expect immediate responses,
      HighRoad layout callback responses may be delayed to allow a
      client to perform any required commits, etc. prior to responding
      to the callback.  This allows the reply to the callback to serve
      as an implicit return of the recalled range or ranges.  For a
      simple return case, this saves a round trip (client replies to
      callback, doesn't have to issue a separate return).  Another
      useful case is that the response to a set EOF callback discards
      all layout info beyond the block containing the new EOF (need
      filesystem block size attribute for this to work).  If NFSv4 style
      callbacks that expect immediate responses are used, the client has
      to perform an explicit LAYOUTRETURN.

   2. HighRoad uses a server message number for operation sequencing,
      which appears to correspond well to the layout stateid in [WELCH-
      OPS], except that the server message number has per-file rather
      than per-layout scope.  The pNFS layout stateid should probably
      have per-file scope in order to deal well with Issue 1 in Section
      3 above. The server message number serves to ensure that a pNFS
      client can process pNFS server replies (operation completions) and
      callbacks *in the same order* as the pNFS server.

   The delayed callback response creates an ordering issue in that the
   client may immediately issue a LAYOUTGET for the range that its
   callback reply returns - if that request crosses the callback reply
   on the wire, the server must detect this reordering and tell the
   client to retry.  This does not require a sequence number/stateid
   mechanism - the server must wait for the callback to finish before
   processing any conflicting LAYOUTGET from the same client.  With an
   NFSv4-style callback, the client must wait for its LAYOUTRETURN to
   complete before issuing the LAYOUTGET, so this issue does not arise.

   In the reverse direction, the same "cross on the wire" scenario
   applies, and requires a sequencing mechanism.  The server may issue a
   recall for a range covered by a LAYOUTGET immediately after returning
   the layout to the client.  If the recall arrives first, the client
   has to queue it until the LAYOUTGET result comes back and process the
   callback against that new layout.  A variant on this that appears


Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   similar to the client but requires a different response occurs when
   the server issued the recall before processing the LAYOUTGET; in this
   case the server will reject the LAYOUTGET as having a stale sequence
   number/stateid (because that number/stateid was incremented by the
   recall callback) and the client needs to process the callback before
   retrying the LAYOUTGET.

3.2. Crash Recovery Issues

   Client recovery for layout delegations works in much the same way as
   NFSv4 client recovery for other lock/delegation state.  When an NFSv4
   client reboots, it will lose all information about the layout
   delegations that it previously owned.  There are two methods by which
   the server can reclaim these resources and begin providing them to
   other clients.  The first is through the expiry of the client's
   lock/delegation lease.  If the client recovery time is longer than
   the lease period, the client's lock/delegation lease will expire and
   the server will know to reclaim any state held by the client.  On the
   other hand, the client may recover in less time than it takes for the
   lease period to expire.  In such a case, the client will be required
   to contact the server through the standard SETCLIENTID protocol.  The
   server will find that the client's id matches the id of the previous
   client invocation, but that the verifier is different.  The server
   uses this as a signal to reclaim all the state associated with the
   client's previous invocation.

   The server recovery case is slightly more complex.  In general, the
   recovery process will again follow the standard NFSv4 recovery model:
   the client will discover that the server has rebooted when it
   receives an unexpected STALE_STATEID or STALE_CLIENTID reply from the
   server; it will then proceed to try to reclaim its previous
   delegations during the server's recovery grace period.  However there
   is an important safety concern associated with layout delegations
   that does not come into play in the standard NFSv4 case.  If a
   standard NFSv4 client makes use of a stale delegation, the
   consequence could be to deliver stale data to an application.
   However, the pNFS layout delegation enables the client to directly
   access the file system storage---if this access is not properly
   managed by the NFSv4 server the client can potentially corrupt the
   file system data or meta-data.

   Thus it is vitally important that the client discover that the server
   has rebooted as soon as possible, and that the client stops using
   stale layout delegations before the server gives the delegations away
   to other clients.  To ensure this, the client must be implemented so
   that layout delegations are never used to access the storage after
   the client's lease timer has expired.  This prohibition applies to


Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   all accesses, especially the flushing of dirty data to storage.  If
   the client's lease timer expires because the client could not contact
   the server for any reason, the client MUST immediately stop using the
   layout delegation until the server can be contacted and the
   delegation can be officially recovered or reclaimed.

3.3. Additional Features - Not Needed or Recommended

   This subsection is a place to record things that existing SAN or
   clustered filesystems do that aren't needed or recommended for pNFS:

   o  Callback for write-to-read downgrade.  Writers tend to want to
      remain writers, so this feature isn't very useful.

   o  HighRoad FMP implements several frequently used operation
      combinations as single RPCs for efficiency; these can be
      effectively handled by NFSv4 COMPOUNDs.  One subtle difference is
      that a single RPC is treated as a single operation, whereas NFSv4
      COMPOUNDs are not atomic in any sense.  This can cause operation
      ordering subtleties, such as having to set the new EOF *before*
      returning the layout extent that contains the new EOF, even within
      a single COMPOUND.

   o  Queued request support.  The HighRoad FMP protocol specification
      allows the server to return an "operation blocked" result code
      with a cookie that is later passed to the client in a "it's done
      now" callback.  This has not proven to be of great use vs. having
      the client retry with some sort of back-off.  Recommendations on
      how to back off should be added to the ops draft.

   o  Additional client and server crash detection mechanisms.  As a
      separate protocol, HighRoad FMP had to handle this on its own.  As
      an NFSv4 extension, NFSv4's SETCLIENTID, STALE CLIENTID and STALE
      STATEID mechanisms combined with implicit lease renewal and (per-
      file) layout stateids should be sufficient for pNFS.

   o  The use of separate read and write layouts to enable client
      participation in copy-on-write (as in IBM's SAN.FS) does not seem
      to be important to pNFS; this may be an implementation approach
      that is unique to SAN.FS .

4. Security Considerations

   Certain security responsibilities are delegated to pNFS clients.
   Block/volume storage systems generally control access at a volume
   granularity, and hence pNFS clients have to be trusted to only
   perform accesses allowed by the layout extents it currently holds


Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


   (e.g., and not access storage for files on which a layout extent is
   not held).  This also has implications for some NFSv4 functionality
   outside pNFS.  For instance, if a file is covered by a mandatory
   read-only lock, the server can ensure that only read-layout-
   delegations for the file are granted to pNFS clients.  However, it is
   up to each pNFS client to ensure that the read layout delegation is
   used only to service read requests, and not to allow writes to the
   existing parts of the file.  Since block/volume storage systems are
   generally not capable of enforcing such file-based security, in
   environments where pNFS clients cannot be trusted to enforce such
   policies, block/volume-based pNFS SHOULD NOT be used.

   <TBD: Need discussion about security for block/volume protocol vis-a-
   vis NFSv4 security.  Client may not even use same identity for both
   (e.g., for Fibre Channel, same identity as NFSv4 is impossible).
   Need to talk about consistent security protection of data via NFSv4
   vs. direct block/volume access.  Some of this extends discussion in
   previous paragraph about client responsibility for security as part
   of overall system.>

5. Conclusions

   <TBD: Add any conclusions>

6. Acknowledgments

   This draft draws extensively on the authors' familiarity with the the
   mapping functionality and protocol in EMC's HighRoad system.  The
   protocol used by HighRoad is called FMP (File Mapping Protocol); it
   is an add-on protocol that runs in parallel with filesystem protocols
   such as NFSv3 to provide pNFS-like functionality for block/volume
   storage.  While drawing on HighRoad FMP, the data structures and
   functional considerations in this draft differ in significant ways,
   based on lessons learned and the opportunity to take advantage of
   NFSv4 features such as COMPOUND operations.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [WELCH-OPS] Welch, B., et. al. "pNFS Operations Summary", draft-
             welch-pnfs-ops-01.txt, Work in Progress, May 2005.

   TODO: Need to reference RFC 3530.


Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


7.2. Informative References

   OPEN ISSUE: HighRoad and/or SAN.FS references?

Author's Addresses

   David L. Black
   EMC Corporation
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA 01748

   Phone: +1 (978) 263-0937
   Email: black_david@emc.com


   Stephen Fridella
   EMC Corporation
   32 Coslin Drive
   Southboro, MA  01772

   Phone: +1 (508) 305-8512
   Email: fridella_stephen@emc.com


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org


Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout                May 2005


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



























Black                   Expires December 2005                 [Page 15]