Bidirectional Remote Procedure Call on RPC-over-RDMA Transports
RFC 8167
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-06-30
|
08 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8167, changed title to 'Bidirectional Remote Procedure Call on RPC-over-RDMA Transports', changed abstract to 'Minor … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8167, changed title to 'Bidirectional Remote Procedure Call on RPC-over-RDMA Transports', changed abstract to 'Minor versions of Network File System (NFS) version 4 newer than minor version 0 work best when Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transports can send RPC transactions in both directions on the same connection. This document describes how RPC transport endpoints capable of Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) convey RPCs in both directions on a single connection.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-06-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2017-06-30
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2017-06-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8167">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2017-06-06
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8167">AUTH48</a> from AUTH48-DONE |
|
2017-06-06
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8167">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2017-06-02
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8167">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2017-05-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2017-03-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
|
2017-03-14
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
|
2017-03-14
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2017-03-14
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-03-09
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-03-08
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2017-03-08
|
08 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-08.txt |
|
2017-03-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-03-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-03-08
|
08 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-03-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
|
2017-03-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2017-03-02
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Edit: I meant to add, thanks for a well written and easy to read document! Some minor comments: -4.1: This is the first … [Ballot comment] Edit: I meant to add, thanks for a well written and easy to read document! Some minor comments: -4.1: This is the first mention of "credits", and there is no definition. I realize that the term is defined in the reference from the previous section. It would be helpful to mention that in the context of that reference. -- Are there any head-of-line-blocking issues introduced by bidirectional transactions? For example, can a reply get stuck behind requests that are blocked by flow control? -5.4, 4th paragraph, last sentence: Can a reverse requestor reasonably give up or time out, rather than wait "indefinitely"? -8: This implies that reverse direction transactions do not change anything.If that is the case, please say so explicitly. For example, Is there any change to authentication for reverse calls? I am not an expert in direct memory access transport protocols; are there every situation where authentication depends on an initial request from the client? |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Some minor comments: -4.1: This is the first mention of "credits", and there is no definition. I realize that the term is defined … [Ballot comment] Some minor comments: -4.1: This is the first mention of "credits", and there is no definition. I realize that the term is defined in the reference from the previous section. It would be helpful to mention that in the context of that reference. -- Are there any head-of-line-blocking issues introduced by bidirectional transactions? For example, can a reply get stuck behind requests that are blocked by flow control? -5.4, 4th paragraph, last sentence: Can a reverse requestor reasonably give up or time out, rather than wait "indefinitely"? -8: This implies that reverse direction transactions do not change anything.If that is the case, please say so explicitly. For example, Is there any change to authentication for reverse calls? I am not an expert in direct memory access transport protocols; are there every situation where authentication depends on an initial request from the client? |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well written document! Minor comments: 1) Please double-check if maybe more normative language is needed; maybe some of the lower … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well written document! Minor comments: 1) Please double-check if maybe more normative language is needed; maybe some of the lower case musts and shoulds, could/should be upper case, especially in section 4.2 and 4.3...? 2) sec 5.4: I guess if available the requester in reverse direction could also open a TCP connection to retransmit? 3) What's DDP? 4) Are there any security impacts because a connection might stay open longer than previously? |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2017-03-01
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2017-02-28
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2017-02-28
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for taking into account the SecDir review comments. |
|
2017-02-28
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2017-02-28
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-02-26
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2017-02-26
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2017-02-15
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
|
2017-02-15
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
|
2017-02-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-03-02 |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-02-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-02-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2017-02-08
|
07 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-07.txt |
|
2017-02-08
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-02-08
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-02-08
|
07 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-02-07
|
06 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
|
2017-02-07
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2017-02-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-02-02
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06.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 |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
|
2017-01-26
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
|
2017-01-25
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
|
2017-01-25
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
|
2017-01-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-01-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06.txt> (Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On RPC-over-RDMA Transports) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG (nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On RPC-over-RDMA Transports' <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06.txt> 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 2017-02-07. 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 Minor versions of NFSv4 newer than NFSv4.0 work best when ONC RPC transports can send Remote Procedure Call transactions in both directions on the same connection. This document describes how RPC- over-RDMA transport endpoints convey RPCs in both directions on a single connection. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2017-01-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2017-01-24
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06.txt |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-01-20
|
06 | Chuck Lever | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Spencer Dawkins Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com) Internet Draft: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-05.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested … Working Group: NFSv4 Area Director: Spencer Dawkins Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com) Internet Draft: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-05.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? Thus document is a candidate for Proposed Standard RFCs. (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 definition of using RPC [RFC5531] for concurrent operation in both directions on a single transport connection using RPC-over-RDMA protocol versions that do not have specific facilities for backward direction operation. Backward direction RPC transactions are necessary for the operation of NFSv4.1, and in particular, of pNFS, though any Upper Layer Protocol implementation may make use of them. An Upper Layer Binding for NFSv4.x callback operation is additionally required (see Section 7), but is not provided in this document. For example, using the approach described herein, RPC transactions can be conveyed in both directions on the same RPC-over-RDMA Version One connection without changes to the the XDR description of RPC- over-RDMA Version One. This document does not modify the XDR or protocol described in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]. Future versions of RPC-over-RDMA may adopt the approach described herein, or may replace it with a different approach. Working Group Summary These documents have been non-controversial within the working group and there is broad support for the work. Document Quality The document quality is high. There has been very good review and input from the working group throughout the process. There is very good implementation experience in this area and was the reason why the document was originally suggested as a working group item - an outcome of implementation of the existing RPC RDMA capabilities. (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. The document shepherd has done a full review of the documents and they are ready for publication. (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 special review is needed. (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. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None. (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 working group consensus. No issues exist. (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.) Not applicable. (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. One reference will need to be updated to most recent version. No other major issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, appropriate references align with appropriate normative and informative use. (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 are published. (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. Not applicable. (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). The IANA has been reviewed and been found to meet the necessary requirements. (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. IANA registries do not require expert review. (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. |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-11-28
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-07-19
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2016-07-19
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> |
|
2016-07-19
|
05 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler |
|
2016-06-09
|
05 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-05.txt |
|
2016-05-27
|
04 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-04.txt |
|
2016-05-02
|
03 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-03.txt |
|
2016-04-17
|
02 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2016-04-17
|
02 | Spencer Shepler | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-04-17
|
02 | Spencer Shepler | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2016-04-08
|
02 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-02.txt |
|
2015-09-25
|
01 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-01.txt |
|
2015-06-01
|
00 | Chuck Lever | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-00.txt |