Requirements for Parallel NFS (pNFS) Layout Types
RFC 8434

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2018-04-19 for -10)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss/comments; changing to Yes as promised.
(Original ballot text preserved below for posterity.)


DISCUSS

Thanks for writing this up; it's good to have better clarity about the requirements placed on various
actors in pNFS.  I will change to Yes once this issue is resolved:

Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, and we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific requirements are being changed/added;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661]".

COMMENT

Section 1

   Such matters are defined in a standards-track layout type
   specification.

This could be read as saying that there is a single document, which
happens to be a layout-type specification and standards-track, that
gives guidance on how layout types differ.  Maybe:

   Each layout type will define the needed details for its usage in
   the specifciation for that layout type; layout type
   specifications are always standards-track RFCs.


Section 3.3

   [..] If the document does not
   impose implementation requirements sufficient to ensure that these
   semantic requirements are met, it is not appropriate for the working
   group to allow the document to move forward.

Maybe "it is not appropriate for publication as an IETF-stream RFC"?

   o  If the metadata server does not have a means to invalidate a
      stateid issued to the storage device to keep a particular client
      from accessing a specific file, then the layout type specification
      has to document how the metadata server is going to fence the
      client from access to the file on that storage device.

Is the stateid issued to the storage device or to the client?


Section 4 leaves me confused about what exactly from RFC 5661 is
being updated.  That is, the subsections look to be some discussion
about how the "real requirements" (i.e., this document) apply to the
given layout types, we are told that these sections do not update
the specification for those specific layout types.  So it's hard to
get a clear picture about which specific things are being updated;
this leads me to wonder if the top-level Section 4 should not say
"This section updates Section 12 of [RFC5661]" and leave the
"discussed here only to illuminate the updates made to Section 12 of
[RFC5661[".


Section 6

   [...] In the latter case, I/O access writes
   are reflected in layouts [...]

s/writes/rights/

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-04-16 for -10)
No email
send info
Thank you for this.

I had one readability issue -- I find:
" control communication requirements:  are for a layout type the
      details regarding information on layouts, stateids, file metadata,
      and file data which must be communicated between the metadata
      server and the storage devices." 

to be very hard to read. I tried for a while to break this up into multiple sentences but was unable. It would be nice if the authors could succeed where I failed...

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2018-04-13 for -10)
No email
send info
Please use RFC8174 boilerplate and maybe double-check the use of lower case MUSTs and MAYs, e.g. should this sentence in the security considerations maybe use an upper case MUST:

"The layout type specification must ensure that only data accesses
   consistent with the NFSV4.1 security model are allowed."

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2018-04-18 for -10)
No email
send info
Thanks to all involved for the work they did on this document.

I had the same confusion as Benjamin, and support his discuss. I also found one very small grammar nit in §2:

>  (file) data:  is that part of the file system object which contains
>     the data to read or written.

Change to either "...to read or write." or "...to be read or written."

Martin Vigoureux No Objection