Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:49:25 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 of the IETF.

        Title           : Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout
        Author          : Christoph Hellwig
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-07.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2016-08-16

Abstract:
   The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between
   the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage
   device) for a file.  The SCSI Layout Type is defined in this document
   as an extension to pNFS to allow the use SCSI based block storage
   devices.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:07:01 +0200

This should address all the pending comments vs -06, both from
Dave on the list and the ietf security and ops review.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:49:25PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
---end quoted text---

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:43:21 +0000

Looks good - one minor editorial suggestion at the end of the introduction:

OLD
   This new layout type also optimizes the I/O path by reducing the size
   of the LAYOUTCOMMIT payload.  Except for these changes the protocol
   is identical to [RFC5663], most importantly there are no changes to
   way the volume topology is built Section 2.3.2, and the data
   structures that describe extents Section 2.4 are unchanged compared
   to [RFC5663] as well.
NEW
   This new layout type also optimizes the I/O path by reducing the size
   of the LAYOUTCOMMIT payload.

   Aside from the changes summarized in the previous two paragraphs,
   the protocol is identical to [RFC5663], and specifically, there are no
   changes to data structures for volume topology (Section 2.3.2) and
   extents (Section 2.4).

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfsv4 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-07.txt
>

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:14:44 +0200

>    changes to data structures for volume topology (Section 2.3.2) and

The reason for my somewhat clumsy wording is that the scsi layout
removes the "simple" volume type and instead add the "base" volume
type to replace it instead, so strictly speaking there are changes
in how the volume topology is defined.

But if you can come up with a nice wording for that I'll happily change
it and will send out a new version of the draft ASAP.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:39:20 +0000

The above two paragraphs summarize the major functional differences from
   [RFC5663].  There are other minor differences,  e.g., the "base" volume type in
   this specification is used instead of the "simple" volume type in [RFC5663], but
   there are no significant differences in the data structures that describe the
   volume topology above this level (Section 2.3.2)  or in the data structures that
   describe extents (Section 2.4).

Sorry for the delay - I was trying to take vacation ... silly me :-).

Thanks, --David

> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:15 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; [email-masked]

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:47:17 +0200

Thanks a lot David!