Skip to main content

Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1
RFC 8267

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-10-25
13 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8267, changed title to 'Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1', changed …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8267, changed title to 'Network File System (NFS) Upper-Layer Binding to RPC-over-RDMA Version 1', changed abstract to 'This document specifies Upper-Layer Bindings of Network File System (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA version 1, thus enabling the use of Direct Data Placement.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.', changed pages to 21, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-10-25, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis and RFC 5667)
2017-10-25
13 (System) RFC published
2017-10-24
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-10-09
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-09-28
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-09-07
13 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2017-09-06
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari.
2017-09-05
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-09-05
13 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-09-05
13 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-09-05
13 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-09-05
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2017-09-05
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-09-05
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-09-05
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-09-05
13 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-09-05
13 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-08-31
13 Spencer Dawkins RFC Editor Note was changed
2017-08-31
13 Spencer Dawkins RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2017-08-31
13 Spencer Dawkins RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2017-08-31
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-08-31
13 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-30
13 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-30
13 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-08-30
13 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-08-30
13 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-30
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-30
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-30
13 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-08-29
13 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-29
13 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-08-29
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-28
13 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-27
13 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me, the new text in -13,

"An Upper …
[Ballot comment]
This nit didn't stop me from putting the draft on a telechat agenda, but to me, the new text in -13,

"An Upper Layer Binding specifies this agreement for one version or more versions of one RPC program"

would be less clunky it read "one or more versions".

I know we talked about that on e-mail, so I'm just adding this to my Yes ballot so *I* remember to check for it!
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins Ballot has been issued
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins Created "Approve" ballot
2017-08-25
13 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was changed
2017-08-24
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd.
2017-08-24
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-08-21
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-21
13 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

there are three entries for port number 20049 in support of Network File System (NFS) over RDMA. We understand that the current draft obsoletes the RFC that created these three port number registrations. As a result, the reference for the TCP, UDP, and SCTP registrations for port number 20049 should be change from [ RFC5666 ] to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2017-08-15
13 Spencer Dawkins Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-31
2017-08-15
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari
2017-08-15
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari
2017-08-10
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2017-08-10
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2017-08-10
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2017-08-10
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2017-08-10
13 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-10
13 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Network File System (NFS)
Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version
  1'
  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 2017-08-24. 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


  This document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System
  (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA version 1, enabling the use
  of Direct Data Placement.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-08-10
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins Ballot approval text was generated
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was generated
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party
2017-08-10
13 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2017-08-10
13 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-13.txt
2017-08-10
13 (System) New version approved
2017-08-10
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever
2017-08-10
13 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-08-08
12 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-12.txt
2017-08-08
12 (System) New version approved
2017-08-08
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever
2017-08-08
12 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-08-07
11 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation
2017-08-03
11 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or …

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11

(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?

Proposed Standard

(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 specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System
  (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA Version One, enabling the
  use of Direct Data Placement.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little to no
  contention over the approach and resultant content.

Document Quality

  The quality of this document is high and is ready to move forward.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
 
(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.

Full document was reviewed by the shepherd and the I-D is ready.

(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.

(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.

No additional concerns.

(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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

N/A

(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 consensus from the WG for this document.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

There are a few nits that will be easily updated during future updates based on IESG
feedback or during AUTH48 edits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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?

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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.

This is a "bis" or replacement for 5667.

(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).

IANA section is a carry-forward of the existing RFC 5667 and is still applicable.

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler Changed document writeup
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-07-14
11 Spencer Shepler Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-05-09
11 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-11.txt
2017-05-09
11 (System) New version approved
2017-05-09
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-09
11 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-05-06
10 Spencer Shepler Notification list changed to Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
2017-05-06
10 Spencer Shepler Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler
2017-05-06
10 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2017-05-06
10 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-10.txt
2017-05-06
10 (System) New version approved
2017-05-06
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-06
10 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-04-14
09 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2017-04-12
09 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09.txt
2017-04-12
09 (System) New version approved
2017-04-12
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-04-12
09 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-04-04
08 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-08.txt
2017-04-04
08 (System) New version approved
2017-04-04
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-04-04
08 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-03-09
07 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-07.txt
2017-03-09
07 (System) New version approved
2017-03-09
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-09
07 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-02-24
06 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-06.txt
2017-02-24
06 (System) New version approved
2017-02-24
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chuck Lever , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-02-24
06 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-02-03
05 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-05.txt
2017-02-03
05 (System) New version approved
2017-02-03
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-02-03
05 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2017-01-20
04 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-04.txt
2017-01-20
04 (System) New version approved
2017-01-20
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2017-01-20
04 Chuck Lever Uploaded new revision
2016-09-28
03 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-03.txt
2016-09-28
03 Chuck Lever New version approved
2016-09-28
03 Chuck Lever Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Chuck Lever" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
2016-09-28
03 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-08-25
02 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-02.txt
2016-06-30
01 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-01.txt
2016-06-13
00 Chuck Lever New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-00.txt