Skip to main content

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