Parallel NFS (pNFS) Block/Volume Layout
RFC 5663

[Ballot discuss]
This solution significantly expands the security responsibilities of NFS clients, and there
are a number of environments where the mandatory to implement security properties for nfs
cannot be satisfied.  While the new requirements for pNFS clients and limitations in
applicability are documented quite clearly in the security considerations, I believe this
information merits documentation in the body of the document.

Specifically, Section 2.1 Background and Architecture, should document the security
responsibilities delegated to pNFS clients and note the limitations in applicability.

[Ballot comment]
Review by Christian Vogt:

The specification is overall in good shape and
should proceed for publication soon.  I do suggest addressing the
following comments, though, before forwarding the document to the RFC
Editor.

Technical:

- Section 2.2.1 ("Volume Identification") specifies two methods for
  identifying a position on a disk: by positive offset starting at the
  beginning of the disk, and by negative offset starting at the end of
  the disk.  The second method is limited to implementations where
  server and client have the same understanding of the disk size. This
  method could be generalized:  If you defined an offset, positive or
  negative, to be in the context of the disk size as seen by the
  client, then you may potentially also support implementations where
  server and clients have a different understanding of the disk size.
  The authors may consider this.

- Section 2.4 ("Crash Recovery Issues") specifies recovery procedures
  that a client could initiate following a server crash.  These
  procedures apply in one specific condition, which is defined at the
  beginning of the section ("When the server crashes while the client
  holds a writable layout, and the client has written data to blocks
  covered by the layout, and the blocks are still in the
  PNFS_BLOCK_INVALID_DATA state, [then]...").  The section should also
  consider other conditions.  It may be sufficient to explain why only
  the described condition requires recovery.

- Section 2.4 ("Crash Recovery Issues") does not explain how a client
  detects a server crash.  The section should briefly explain this. It
  may be sufficient to mention that crash detection is specified in a
  related document, or that it is implementation-specific.

Editorial:

- The specification uses undefined acronyms in a couple of places,
  including in the title.  Those should be spelled out when mentioned
  the first time.  Search for "pNFS", "SAN", "XDR", "LUN" to find the
  relevant places in the specification.

IANA comments:

IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are
completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also
under consideration by the IESG.
As a result, upon approval of this document, IANA has NO ADDITIONAL actions
other than those outlined in the companion document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-
minorversion1-26.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has received review outside of the principle
authors and during the course of the working group last call.
The specification has also enjoyed a degree of implementation
that has lead to clarifications and updates.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No concerns exist.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No such concerns exist.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the NFSv4 working group and NFS
community in general.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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 strategy for
their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these
downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

No. This will be corrected in the next update of the draft.

Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

No. This will be corrected in the next update of the draft.

If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a
reasonable name for the new registry?

N/A

See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

N/A

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document provides a specification of a block based
layout type definition to be used with the NFSv4.1 protocol.
As such, this is a companion specification to NFS version 4
Minor Version 1.

Working Group Summary

As part of the NFSv4.1 document review, this document
benefited from formal review and portions of the specified
protocol have also been prototyped. The NFSv4 working group
has been supportive of this work and there have been no major
constroversies during its development.

Document Quality

As mentioned, this document and the mainline NFSv4.1
specification have enjoyed general review along with detailed
formal review within the working group. The specification
has also been embodied in at least one prototype as a method
of verifying the suitable of the document in leading to
reasonable implementation. Therefore, the overall quality of
this document is high.