Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-07-12
Requested 2016-06-29
Authors Christoph Hellwig
I-D last updated 2016-08-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Victor Kuarsingh
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 10)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-08-16
Dear Authors,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 

IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the 

operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed 

in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any 

other last call comments.

Document Reviewed - Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout

Link to Document -


The document reviewed is intended to provide an extension of pNFS 

(Parallel Network File System) providing a Layout Type for the use of 

SCSI block storage devices.  The original pNFS standard was documented 

in RFC5663 and updated by RFC6688 (Block Disk Protection).

The document details the client and server technical implementation 

details for the new Layout Type along with the XDR description of the 

NFSv4.1 SCSI layout.

General Comments and Feedback:

The document is well written and no specific textual changes (i.e. NITs, 

edits) are recommended by this review.  Overall the document fully 

describes proposed standard and use of the new Layout Type for pNFS 


There are two generic comments from this review which the author(s) can 

consider with respect to operational considerations.

(1). Operational Considerations Section [Minor]

Throughout the document, many of the operational considerations are in 

fact noted, but are within the body text.  Although this is valid, the 

author(s) may consider highlighting those considerations in a separate 

section (perhaps before/after Security Considerations Section) to help a 

new ready quickly understand the mail challenges which considering the 

use of this Layout for specific implementations.

An example of such a consideration would be in the fourth (4th) 

paragraph on page 7 which notes that SCSI devices are generally not 

capable of enforcing such file-based security in environments were pNFS 

clients cannot be trusted.  Since this is a potential use scenario, it 

would be good to have such items specifically noted and highlighted.

This is not necessary, but only recommended.

(2). Layout Requests and Extent Lists [Minor]

Section 2.4.1 outlines criteria for extent list returns. Bullet's 1 and 

2 provide both the allowed and not allowed extent returns.  Although 

technically correct, if the not allowed extents are going to be listed 

(which makes sense to ensure the implementer understands what's 

allowed), perhaps sub-bullets can be used to highlight those (e.g. 

PNFS_SCSI_INVALID_DATA) or a more clear "SHALL NOT" (keyword) such as " 



Textual Review, questions and feedback:

None recommended.