Subject: [nfsv4] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 05:37:29 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment is Section 8.6 made me wonder: is there an IANA registry of all
NFS extensions? Having a single place would avoid problems of conflicting
allocations.

Nit: "xattrs" is sometimes mistyped as "xatrrs"

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:16:54 -0400

Hi, Alexey,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs/

You may get a smarter answer (and maybe even a smarter answer from someone
named Spencer), but my understanding is that the versioning draft is
opening the gate for extensions, which would previously have been part of a
(400-600 page) document specifying a new version of NFSv4, and that prior
to this mechanism, there wouldn't have been a need for such a registry.

If there are more than two extensions planned, that is probably a good
point.

Over to you, Spencer (Shepler)

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:39:20 +0000

From: nfsv4 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:17 AM
To: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>; NFSv4 <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Alexey,

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: No Objection

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&data=02%7C01%7Csshepler%40microsoft.com%7C3d2906f5a2d544de449f08d4a1eec346%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636311494251369645&sdata=DjsIKLk9g48UKmaxjLl0%2B%2FIR3LZLfQYFk7CVlPe2huA%3D&reserved=0>
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csshepler%40microsoft.com%7C3d2906f5a2d544de449f08d4a1eec346%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636311494251369645&sdata=6feVhk4QFGO6I5hVQUBmCWOTuPCC1Nii85H0pqFuYvE%3D&reserved=0>

You may get a smarter answer (and maybe even a smarter answer from someone named Spencer), but my understanding is that the versioning draft is opening the gate for extensions, which would previously have been part of a (400-600 page) document specifying a new version of NFSv4, and that prior to this mechanism, there wouldn't have been a need for such a registry.

If there are more than two extensions planned, that is probably a good point.

Over to you, Spencer (Shepler)
[Spencer] Spencer D. is correct. There hasn’t been a need for an extensions registry because the definitions have been included in the full/minor version of NFSv4.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:21:48 -0400

> You may get a smarter answer (and maybe even a smarter answer from
someone named Spencer),

I don't think it\s possible to get a smarter answer, but I'll try to
provide a more complete answer.

> but my understanding is that the versioning draft is opening the gate for
extensions,

That is the purpose.

> which would previously have been part of a (400-600 page) document
specifying a new version of NFSv4,

To be fair, NFSv4.2 was about 100 pages.   It did not document the protocol
as a whole as 4.1 did,
but combined a set of optional extensions and published it as a minor
version.  At the time, that was
the only way to add optional new features.

> and that prior to this mechanism, there wouldn't have been a need for
such a registry.

True.

point.

I don't know of any extensions currently planned but it is a reasonable
expectation that there
will be others.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:32:20 -0400

Hi, David,

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:21 AM, David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > but my understanding is that the versioning draft is opening the gate
> for extensions,
>
> That is the purpose.
>
> To be fair, NFSv4.2 was about 100 pages.   It did not document the
> protocol as a whole as 4.1 did,

That's true. I was remembering balloting on RFC 7530 (300-something pages),
and when Stephen complained, Martin's response was "RFC 5661 had just over
600 pages, so stop complaining" :-)

Spencer (D), who has a sudden new respect for Lars, the responsible AD for
RFC 5661!

>> someone named Spencer), but my understanding is that the versioning draft
>> is opening the gate for extensions, which would previously have been part
>> of a (400-600 page) document specifying a new version of NFSv4, and that
>> prior to this mechanism, there wouldn't have been a need for such a
>> registry.
>>