Subject: [nfsv4] NFS4.1 Spec Review: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID (Part I)

From: "Erasani, Pranoop" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:54:16 -0700

Please find below the review comments captured from the first review
session scheduled for inspection of "Exchange ID and Destroy Client ID"
related chapters.

#Date#

August 21, 2007, 12 - 2 PM PST

#Participants#

Mike Eisler		- Network Appliance	(Moderator/Author)
Spencer Shepler	- Sun Microsystems	(Author)
Dave Noveck		- Sun Microsystems	(Inspector)
Ricardo Labiaga	- Network Appliance	(Reader)
Saadia Khan		- Network Appliance	(Inspector)
Pranoop Erasani	- Network Appliance	(Scribe/Inspector)
Robert gordon	- Sun Microsystems	(Inspector)
Brent Welsch	- Panasas			(Inspector)
Benny Halevy	- Panasas			(Inspector)

#Review Comments#

Line No.	Raised By		Comment
--------	---------		-------
868-873	Labiaga/Erasani	Needs better wording. The two-tiered approach
adds to more confusion.

General	Gordon		An application level program can be a client
too. Using "reboot" does not make sense in that context.
s/reboot/re-initialization.

1196		Labiaga		Does NFSv4 represent NFSv4 and NFSv4.1.
Suggestion: s/NFSv4/NFSv4.1

1331-1335	Noveck,Khan,	This exists based on the assumption that
NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 can talk to each other.
		Erasani		Suggestion: Remove these and make it
explicit that both NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 are separate.

1386		Khan			Mention the appropriate flag
here (sr_status_flags).

1408		Khan			Should we mention if state
cleanup is Ok?

1408		Noveck		Can we desFrom [email-masked] Sun Sep 09 22:59:00 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:54:16 -0700
From: "Erasani, Pranoop" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nfsv4] NFS4.1 Spec Review: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID (Part
	I)

Please find below the review comments captured from the first review
session scheduled for inspection of "Exchange ID and Destroy Client ID"
related chapters.

#Date#

August 21, 2007, 12 - 2 PM PST

#Participants#

Mike Eisler		- Network Appliance	(Moderator/Author)
Spencer Shepler	- Sun Microsystems	(Author)
Dave Noveck		- Sun Microsystems	(Inspector)
Ricardo Labiaga	- Network Appliance	(Reader)
Saadia Khan		- Network Appliance	(Inspector)
Pranoop Erasani	- Network Appliance	(Scribe/Inspector)
Robert gordon	- Sun Microsystems	(Inspector)
Brent Welsch	- Panasas			(Inspector)
Benny Halevy	- Panasas			(Inspector)

#Review Comments#

Line No.	Raised By		Comment
--------	---------		-------
868-873	Labiaga/Erasani	Needs better wording. The two-tiered approach
adds to more confusion.

General	Gordon		An application level program can be a client
too. Using "reboot" does not make sense in that context.
s/reboot/re-initialization.

1196		Labiaga		Does NFSv4 represent NFSv4 and NFSv4.1.
Suggestion: s/NFSv4/NFSv4.1

1331-1335	Noveck,Khan,	This exists based on the assumption that
NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 can talk to each other.
		Erasani		Suggestion: Remove these and make it
explicit that both NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 are separate.

1386		Khan			Mention the appropriate flag
here (sr_status_flags).

1408		Khan			Should we mention if state
cleanup is Ok?

1408		Noveck		Can we destroy clientid when associated
sessions are still alive?

1408		Noveck		In general, we need to differentiate
between lock and stateid. (Dave: Lock can't be cleaned up, but stateid
can be cleaned)

1433		Welsch		During EXCHANGEID operation itself we
can resolve the client owner conflicts in terms of State and unexpired
lease.

1438		Khan			MUST NOT -> Need to prune down
the negatives.

1432		Noveck,Eisler,	Referred to having state. But, what does
it mean? Clientid? Session? Lock? Stateid? Suggestion: clientid is
state.
		Gordon

1466		Labiaga		Lacks in-depth overview and jumps into
conclusions on SSV.

1479		Labiaga		Remove double negatives

1483		Erasani		Elaborate update properties -> too many
to list here?

22744		Halevy		Sesion stateid is missing

22815		Halevy/Labiaga	Hash function is not *NULL*

22895		Noveck		Should we put timeout on the expiry of
client owner ID's?

23063		Khan			"or" is missing. (Talk to
saadia)

23106		Noveck		BIND_PRINV_STATEID-> Changing the bit
means what? Eisler: Furute ones only.

23106		Gordon		Not clear whethere this bit is set on
both MDS and DS? What are the options for the server?	

23135		Noveck, Eisler	Refer "pNFS layout" from here.

23224		Eisler		It's not clear how the bit map is mapped
to operation values.

23162		Gordon		Is "pNFS use profile" a drag?

23162		Welsch		Can a client have different machine
credentials tied to different sessions for the same clientid?

23246/23259	Labiaga		If empty array, what's the appropriate
error? (Eisler: INVAL)

23272		Eisler		If ssp_window is 0 - invalid, 1 - one
version of SSV support at any one time.

23280		Labiaga		Is "0" valid?

23276		Eisler		s/are using SSVs/are using the SSV OR
s/are using SSVs/are using the version of the SSV.

23278		Noveck		Why use slotid's?

Meeting ended with review upto Line No. 23327. Apologies in advance, if
I have associated a wrong name with the comment.

Thanks
Pranoop

-----Original Message-----
From: Eisler, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:25 AM
To: 'Spencer Shepler'; Van Belleghem,Audrey; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Talpey, Thomas; Labiaga, Ricardo;
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Noveck, Dave; Khan, Saadia; Erasani, Pranoop
Subject: RE: Kickoff: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID

Here are the lines of the spec,
http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/draft-13/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-13-l
n.txt

that should be inspected (or simply read as noted below).

Definitions
815-849

866-844

Client and Server Owners
1193-1521

Trunking
2263-2424 - Previously inspected. Will not be re-inspected
            but useful for background material.

State Protection Model
3315-3722 - Previously inspected. Will not be re-inspected
            but useful for background material.

EXCHANGE_ID
22726-23661

SET_SSV
25681-25786

DESTROY_CLIENTIID
25995-26034 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:25 AM
> To: Van Belleghem,Audrey
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Talpey, 
> Thomas; Labiaga, Ricardo; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; Noveck, Dave; Eisler, Michael
> Subject: Re: Kickoff: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID
> 
> 
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Van Belleghem,Audrey wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks to those of you who have already participated in
> portions of
> > the NFSv4.1 specification review.  For those that don't know me, I'm

> > a program manager working for Brian Pawlowski in the
> CTO Office
> > of Network Appliance.  Brian is co-chair of the IETF's NFSv4 working

> > group which has submitted an Internet draft titled "NFSv4 Minor 
> > Version 1".
> >
> > The next chapters we'll be reviewing are Exchange ID and Destroy 
> > Client ID.  We'll do those together.
> >
> > The process will work as follows:
> >
> > 7/30/07- Call for reviewers (please forward this messagetroy clientid when associated
sessions are still alive?

1408		Noveck		In general, we need to differentiate
between lock and stateid. (Dave: Lock can't be cleaned up, but stateid
can be cleaned)

1433		Welsch		During EXCHANGEID operation itself we
can resolve the client owner conflicts in terms of State and unexpired
lease.

1438		Khan			MUST NOT -> Need to prune down
the negatives.

1432		Noveck,Eisler,	Referred to having state. But, what does
it mean? Clientid? Session? Lock? Stateid? Suggestion: clientid is
state.
		Gordon

1466		Labiaga		Lacks in-depth overview and jumps into
conclusions on SSV.

1479		Labiaga		Remove double negatives

1483		Erasani		Elaborate update properties -> too many
to list here?

22744		Halevy		Sesion stateid is missing

22815		Halevy/Labiaga	Hash function is not *NULL*

22895		Noveck		Should we put timeout on the expiry of
client owner ID's?

23063		Khan			"or" is missing. (Talk to
saadia)

23106		Noveck		BIND_PRINV_STATEID-> Changing the bit
means what? Eisler: Furute ones only.

23106		Gordon		Not clear whethere this bit is set on
both MDS and DS? What are the options for the server?	

23135		Noveck, Eisler	Refer "pNFS layout" from here.

23224		Eisler		It's not clear how the bit map is mapped
to operation values.

23162		Gordon		Is "pNFS use profile" a drag?

23162		Welsch		Can a client have different machine
credentials tied to different sessions for the same clientid?

23246/23259	Labiaga		If empty array, what's the appropriate
error? (Eisler: INVAL)

23272		Eisler		If ssp_window is 0 - invalid, 1 - one
version of SSV support at any one time.

23280		Labiaga		Is "0" valid?

23276		Eisler		s/are using SSVs/are using the SSV OR
s/are using SSVs/are using the version of the SSV.

23278		Noveck		Why use slotid's?

Meeting ended with review upto Line No. 23327. Apologies in advance, if
I have associated a wrong name with the comment.

Thanks
Pranoop

-----Original Message-----
From: Eisler, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:25 AM
To: 'Spencer Shepler'; Van Belleghem,Audrey; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Talpey, Thomas; Labiaga, Ricardo;
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Noveck, Dave; Khan, Saadia; Erasani, Pranoop
Subject: RE: Kickoff: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID

Here are the lines of the spec,
http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/draft-13/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-13-l
n.txt

that should be inspected (or simply read as noted below).

Definitions
815-849

866-844

Client and Server Owners
1193-1521

Trunking
2263-2424 - Previously inspected. Will not be re-inspected
            but useful for background material.

State Protection Model
3315-3722 - Previously inspected. Will not be re-inspected
            but useful for background material.

EXCHANGE_ID
22726-23661

SET_SSV
25681-25786

DESTROY_CLIENTIID
25995-26034 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:25 AM
> To: Van Belleghem,Audrey
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Talpey, 
> Thomas; Labiaga, Ricardo; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; Noveck, Dave; Eisler, Michael
> Subject: Re: Kickoff: Exchange ID and destroy Client ID
> 
> 
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Van Belleghem,Audrey wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks to those of you who have already participated in
> portions of
> > the NFSv4.1 specification review.  For those that don't know me, I'm

> > a program manager working for Brian Pawlowski in the
> CTO Office
> > of Network Appliance.  Brian is co-chair of the IETF's NFSv4 working

> > group which has submitted an Internet draft titled "NFSv4 Minor 
> > Version 1".
> >
> > The next chapters we'll be reviewing are Exchange ID and Destroy 
> > Client ID.  We'll do those together.
> >
> > The process will work as follows:
> >
> > 7/30/07- Call for reviewers (please forward this message as
> > appropriate)
> >
> > 8/3/07 @ 11:30am Pacific Time for 30 min. Moderated concall for 
> > editors to discuss details with reviewers 865-525-0765; access:
> > 1647064 We will also be looking for volunteers for the scribe, 
> > moderator, author, and reader roles.  (Please let me know if you are

> > available to attend).
> >
> > 8/17/07 - Responses due from reviewers with comments and 
> > suggestions.  Please copy all on your responses.
> >
> > 8/21/07 @ 12-2pm Pacific Time - Moderated concall for review of 
> > comments Concall # 865-525-0765; access: 1647064 (Please let me know

> > if you are available to attend).
> >
> > TBD - Updated document with agreed upon changes.
> >
> > (Spencer will forward the appropriate links for Draft 13, due out
> > 8/3/07)
> >
> > Both meetings will use the same call-in #:
> >
> > (865) 525-0765; 1647064
> > Spencer will host the call.
> >
> > We hope you can assist us by reviewing these chapters of the 
> > document.  If you are unable to assist, please feel free to
> send an
> > alternate representative to our meetings.
> >
> > If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 
> > [email-masked].
> >
> > Thanks everyone for your continued help and support of this revision

> > and review process!
> 
> I think that everyone "here" has been involved in previous reviews.  
> As you may have heard Mike, Dave or I say, the formal review process 
> has been a wild success.  Great comments, discussions and worthwhile 
> and needed updates to the specification.
> 
> Having said that, we were a little short on attendance during the 
> kickoff meeting.  I hope that this was a sign of many of you being on 
> vacation but otherwise able to help out in the review of these 
> particular sections. :-)
> 
> Please let Audrey and I know if you will be able to assist in our 
> review.  Note that if you are unable to make the conference calls for 
> the reviews, your review and comments are still very valuable.
> 
> Spencer
> 

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4