Current Meeting Report
2.8.9 Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modifield: 05/07/2002
Brian Pawlowski <email@example.com>
Robert Thurlow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Transport Area Director(s):
Scott Bradner <email@example.com>
A. Mankin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Transport Area Advisor:
Scott Bradner <email@example.com>
General Discussion: firstname.lastname@example.org
To Subscribe: email@example.com
Description of Working Group:
The objective of this working group is to advance the state of NFS
technology by producing specifications to extend the original NFS
Version 4 work (RFC 3010) to provide additional capabilities, as
o NFS version 4
Advance the protocol along the standards track, coordinating the
development of test suites to provide a high level of implementation
quality. The ONC RPC standards that NFSv4 references must also be
advanced. This includes work to make NFSv4 and the underlying ONC RPC
protocol compatible with IPv6. Specifically, we will advance RFC
3010, RFC 1831, RFC 1833 and RFC 2203 to Draft Standard. The working
group will help advance related security RFCs, specifically through
the definition of a method to advance APIs.
o Replication and Migration
The original working group defined a mechanism for NFS clients and
servers to support replication and migration of data transparently
to an application. Left undefined in the initial work was the
server back end migration and replication mechanism. The working
group will produce a draft submission of a replication/migration
protocol that supports NFS Version 4 clients - needed to create and
maintain replicated filesystems as well as migrating filesystems
from one location to another - and servers for consideration as
The working group will produce a draft submission for consideration
as Proposed Standard of a management MIBs to provide better
management and administration capabilities for NFS and ONC RPC.
o Minor Versions
NFS Version 4 contains within it the capability for minor versioning.
Some discussions within the working group suggest addressing
additional requirements over the original charter. The WG will work
to identify additional requirements for NFSv4 and determine if they
are appropriate and worthwhile for a minor version. This work may
lead to proposals for additional work items. If it does a specific
proposal to add these work items to the charter will be forwarded to
the IESG and IAB.
Goals and Milestones:
|Done|| ||Issue strawman Internet-Draft for v4 |
|Done|| ||Submit Initial Internet-Draft of requirements document |
|Done|| ||Submit Final Internet-Draft of requirements document |
|Done|| ||AD reassesses WG charter |
|Done|| ||Submit v4 Internet-Draft sufficient to begin prototype
|Done|| ||Begin Interoperability testing of prototype implementations |
|Done|| ||Submit NFS version 4 to IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard. |
|Done|| ||Conduct final Interoperability tests |
|Done|| ||Conduct full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features |
|MAR 02|| ||Update API advancement draft |
|APR 02|| ||Form core design team to work on NFS V4
migration/replication requirements and protocol |
|APR 02|| ||Submit revised NFS Version 4 specification (revision to RFC
3010) to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard |
|MAY 02|| ||ADs to submit API advancement internet draft as
informational RFC (needed to advance GSSAPI to Draft
Standard to allow advancement of NFS Version 4) |
|MAY 02|| ||Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements |
|MAY 02|| ||AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
|MAY 02|| ||Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB |
|JUN 02|| ||Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB |
|JUN 02|| ||Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4
migration/replication requirements document, review scope
of task |
|JUL 02|| ||Strawman NFS V4 replication/migration protocol proposal
submitted as an ID |
|JUL 02|| ||Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4 |
|OCT 02|| ||Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to IESG for
consideration as a Proposed Standard |
|OCT 02|| ||Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as
Proposed Standards |
|NOV 02|| ||Submit related Proposed Standards required by NFS Version 4
for consideration as Draft Standards to IESG - RFCs 1831,
1833, 2203, 2078, 2744, RFC 1964, & 2847 |
|NOV 02|| ||Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features |
|NOV 02|| ||Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication |
|DEC 02|| ||Submit report on results of interoperability testing |
|FEB 03|| ||Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for
consideration as Draft Standard to IESG |
No Current Internet-Drafts
Request For Comments:
|RFC2623|| PS ||NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the NFS Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5|
|RFC2624|| I ||NFS Version 4 Design Considerations|
|RFC3010|| PS ||NFS version 4|
Current Meeting Report
Minutes from NFS Version 4 working group meeting at 54th IETF in Yokohama, Japan on July 17, 2002.
Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)
Robert Thurlow <Robert.Thurlow@eng.sun.com>
Brian Pawlowski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Spencer Shepler <email@example.com>
AGENDA: Wednesday July 17: 13:00pm - 15:00 (2 hours)
Welcome and Introduction (Pawlowski) 5 min
Note Well/Blue Sheets
Status, milestones, Bakeathon,
stuff (Pawlowski) 10 min
Brian went over milestones and how we're doing.
NFSv4 - July 1 draft resolves most issues; a few substantive ones left. Will have a new draft out after August Bake-a-Thon (UMich), and will do WG last call.
See the presentation.
Open issues on spec discussion (Brittle) 15 min
Dave Brittle presented specification and V4 issues discussion.
- Over the wire protocol changes mostly complete
- Most issues are "nice to resolve"
- Must do resolutions - about 7 or 8 items? (beepy covered a few items on list to illustrate the nature of most of the open items as clarifications or error code additions).
Migration/replication (Thurlow) 25 min
Rob Thurlow presented migration/replication status.
- Security is the primary issue in the design considerations discussion.
- Compression? An option at best says Scott Bradner, perhaps best left for a separate document.
- General issue on bandwidth reduction techniques. Julian Satran asked whether the general techniques are necessarily applicable to migration? Rob talked about zero block elimination, similar block factoring. Long discussion... twixt Rob and Julian. Question (Julian): what will you do about bandwidth reduction and whether there are different answers for migration and different types of replication e.g. continuous replication of e-mail different from databases. A: there are certainly differences, haven't thought about it that much yet.
NFS and RDDP work (Black) 15 min
David Black discussed RDDP working group (meets 13:00 - 15:00 Thursday) beepy asked David to discuss RDDP and its application to NFS Version 4.
- Overlap with RDMA Consortium asked John Hufferd? Black said expects IETF to absorb.
- Overlap with SNIA NFS RDMA work? asks David Brittle? Black responded that we should look at to what the right forum is moving forward. When and how to transition to IETF.
Scott Bradner said RDDP is new group - if there are requirements out of NFS V4 then we need to feed into RDDP (same for iSCSI).
Julian Satran stated NFS and SCSI are different and that NFS will impose restrictions on RDMA/RDDP use - but, hmmm... beepy pointed to DAFS as an example that solutions for "NFS" exist.
RPC and NFS changes must be reflected in the working group specifications.
More from Rob's notes: Q: RDMA Consortium? A: Original charter was to transfer its work to others, should be possible now. Q: NFS over RDMA WG at SNIA - relationship? A: AD needs to try to manage, want to avoid per-protocol shims. Should get NFS requirements fed to RDDP. Q: iSCSI and NFS seem different in nature, can they feed compatible requirements into RDDP? A: Hopefully, TBD. Any work on NFS or RPC needs to come back through NFSv4 WG, many hope to limit all impact to RPC layer. Q: Coexistance with older clients? A: Probably only via backwards compatible negotiation, with benefits restricted to new client + new server.
Review of work items (Pawlowski) 15 min
- Implementation Guide (info RPC)
- API GSSAPI advancement
- MIB draft
- RPC/XDR/RPCSEC_GSS RFC plans
Dave Brittle want IANA to pick up RPC numbering - Thurlow to take forward, replacing person at Sun. Scott Bradner says we need to write an RFC for IANA consideration. Backlog of RPC numbering requests.
Next work: Implementation guide - bucket to catch some clarifications. API advancement draft - waiting for comments. SNMP MIB draft - want to resurrect, looking for volunteers. Inherited standards - e.g. GSS-API must advance to permit us to advance NFSv4, and need to check on the IANA owning RPC numbers: need to get this on track, Rob Thurlow has this from Brent. Need to read the RFC that says how to write IANA considerations and just do it.
Open discussion (Pawlowski) 30 m
Wrapup (Pawlowski) 5 m
ROI: A Storage Scenario
NFSv4 Replication and Migration