2.8.10 Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 56th IETF Meeting in San Francisco, California USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-01-21

Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
Robert Thurlow <robert.thurlow@sun.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Transport Area Advisor:
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
To Subscribe: majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Archive: http://playground.sun.com/pub/nfsv4/nfsv4-wg-archive
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 described below.

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 Proposed Standard.

o Management

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 implementations
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
Done  Update API advancement draft
Done  Form core design team to work on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements and protocol
Done  Submit revised NFS Version 4 specification (revision to RFC 3010) to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
OCT 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)
OCT 02  Strawman NFS V4 replication/migration protocol proposal submitted as an ID
NOV 02  Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
NOV 02  AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements draft
DEC 02  Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB
DEC 02  Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB
DEC 02  Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4 migration/replication requirements document, review scope of task
FEB 03  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
MAR 03  Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4
MAY 03  Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features
MAY 03  Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication
MAY 03  Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
MAY 03  Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards
JUN 03  Submit report on results of interoperability testing
AUG 03  Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for consideration as Draft Standard to IESG
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-repl-mig-proto-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-repl-mig-design-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1832bis-00.txt
  • 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

    list.NFS Version 4 Working Group
    IETF 56 San Francisco minutes
    Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)
        Robert Thurlow <Robert.Thurlow@eng.sun.com>
        Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
    Document Editor:
        Spencer Shepler <shepler@eng.sun.com>
    AGENDA:  Tuesday March 18 0900-1130 (2.5 hours)
        Welcome and Introduction            (Pawlowski)        5 min
        Agenda bash etc.
            - BLUE SHEETS
            - NOTE WELL
            - Status of drafts
        Connectathon results and issues     (Shepler)         10 min
        Where's RFC3010bis?                 (Shepler)         5  min
        Minor revisions to NFSv4            (Thurlow)         20 min
        Recent drafts                       (Eisler)          40 min
            - XDR update: 
            - SECINFO changes: 
            - Credential Cache GSS Mech: 
        Migration/replication status        (Thurlow)         10 min
        From Repl/Mig to a global namespace (Thurlow)         20 min
        NFS and RDMA/RDDP work              (Pawlowski)       10 min
        Review of work items                (Shepler/Pawlowski) 15 min
            - API GSSAPI advancement
            - MIB draft resurrection
            - RPC/XDR/RPCSEC_GSS RFC plans
        Open discussion                     (Pawlowski)       10 m
        Wrapup                              (Pawlowski)        5 m
    beepy welcomed, blue sheets and noted well.
    Agenda bashed mercilessly.
    Spencer Shepler reported on RFC 3010 revision.  Waiting for 48 hour 
    author review - RFC3010bis - in RFC editor's queue.
    Connectathon 2003 - good results, had 5 implementations there, did some 
    recovery testingand Kerberos testting/GSSAPI. We've hit stride with twice a 
    year off cycle testing, June and October, for 
    implementations.. Next testing is first week of June in Ann Arbor, MI; 
    another bake-a-thon event October in Austin.
    Rob Thurlow reported on minor revisioning.  Minor version is defined by the 
    base specification.  What remains is policy for management of minor 
    revisions from a working group perspective.  Rob defined minor 
    revisions bounding (new minor version does not eliminate previous 
    version support, client server will negotiate down version).  Can add new 
    ops within COMPOUND, add mode bits, attributes.  But our policy in when to 
    spin and why a new revision.  Rob discussed asynchronous feature driven 
    minor versioning sort of vs.  a train model.  People are tending towards the 
    "train model".  Rob slides mention all this.  This discussion will be 
    pursued on the WG alias.  Train model procedure to be defined and vetted 
    within context of IETF. sob entered with IETF feedback and move to reduce 
    number of working groups in transport area.  NFS V4 has options on how to 
    handle minor versions.  Brent Callaghan questioned a 1 year train model 
    with length of IETF process - sob suggested the IETF process is fast 
    enough for a well working working group.
    Mike Eislers's drafts:
    XDR - want to raise it to full standard, needed some work to come into line 
    with current RFCs, mainly ISOC copyright and IANA 
    considerations, trademark updates, etc.  Can find change bars on Mike's 
    URL.  Comment from Scott - will we require some level of review before 
    things get revised?  Mike will add text.
    SECINFO changes - issues from alias.  1) Needs args analogous to LOOKUP, but 
    can't access a parent directory like LOOKUPP - this will be 
    SECINFO_NO_NAME, subargs "current" and "parent".  Need to provide a way to do 
    this.  2) Need to be able to cross a boundary between security domains 3) 
    Need to permit SECINFO to encode more flavors than a few explicitly 
    listed.  Question: do we want a style more analogous to 
    LOOKUP/LOOKUPP and use SECINFOP and SECINFOC instead?  No, probably 
    better this way for minor rev.  Question: can we not do domain 
    crossing?  Can, but it's not fully specified; this will clarify.  
    Question: why do we not just apply this work to currfh?  A: want to limit 
    the ops which have to handle NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC.
    (Eisler had paused during his security presentation and resumed when David 
    Black returned to get some feedback.)
    CCM - waited for David Black.  Want to be able to use a cheaper 
    security mechanism when we're using IPSec/TLS/SSH underneath.  Want to 
    authenticate heavily just once, bind to the secure transport, and cache the 
    creds.  -00 draft obsolete - it was proposed that we change to a simpler 
    wrapper mechanism, and that was accepted.  Issues: MUST specify channel 
    bindings for end-to-end security?  Without, can have 
    man-in-the-middle attacks before client and server 
    authentication, in theory.  Problem: no channel bindings are defined in 
    deployed secure  transports.  Proposal: SHOULD rather than MUST for 
    channel bindings, SHOULD let users set policy to require it, and CCM 
    should negotiate it.  David Black - agrees that channel bindings are not a 
    MUST. TLS, FCIP both deal with a nonce handshake to do simpler binding to 
    transport.  FCIP needs it because it does not try to do 
    authentication in-band.  Mike: promote this as a WG item.  David: 
    strongly agree, because we need this badly for RDDP.
    David Black and Eisler discussed fine points.  David said that one thing on 
    alias was not covered: what about another issue of reuse of cached  
    credentials reused over another TCP connection - a crucial difference 
    between iSCSI use and proposed CCM work.  David said iSCSI binds the 
    credentials to a TCP connection maintaining the IPsec context 
    (disallowing migration).  Eisler agrees.  Julian Satran jumped in a bit - a 
    nonce, Eisler to follow up with Julian.  David suggests FCIP plays this 
    sort of game.  Mike to follow up.  Eisler feels other than issues WG feels it 
    is worthwhile pursuing.  David strongly seconds that.  In context of RDDP 
    tie in.
    Rob Thurlow summarized migration/replication.  Discussed state of 
    current draft.  Trying to come up with a protocol good enoughbut not to 
    complex.  Related to replication/migration is thinking ona global name  
    space.  The AFS attack.  See Rob's slides.  AFS users seeking one global 
    name space and delegated management for local control of portions of the 
    name space.  Automounter has proven an inadequate solution (not 
    generally applicable).  Rob listed the limitations of Automounter.  
    Current V4 protocol does not provide mechanism for enumerating the 
    replicas of a given file system.  Only provides list of 
    possibilities.  (which is not the same thing).  beepy vectored into a 
    little history as to why we avoided swallowing the AFS whale at the start of 
    the NFS Version 4 work.  AFS solved the heterogeneous distributed file 
    system problem by dictating a single solution that made everything look the 
    same.  Treading carefully in this space.  Rob Thurlow to carefully 
    investigate delivery date of Informational RFC describing Sun use of LDAP 
    for naming (Automounter).
    RDDP work items (beepy) - RDDP or RDMA promotes direct data placement by a 
    smart NIC directly into application buffers.  Our charter now includes us 
    producing a problem statement and a requirements document for NFS and 
    related technologies' use of RDDP and RDMA.  Main reason to stop there is 
    because there is not yet an RDDP protocol, and we don't want to wag the 
    dog.  After AD review, we will hope to consider making changes to NFS or RPC 
    or both to make use of the protocol.  Next action: form a subgroup to 
    whack this together.
    Beepy - other documents.  To take NFSv4 to Draft, we need to move a bunch of 
    normative references ahead, either ourselves or in cooperation with other 
    groups.  GSS-API C and Java bindings are being worked now, need to 
    conference with Scott Bradner.  Need to get re-engaged with MIBs and other
    Other issues:
    >From Mike Eisler - RPC program # registration - retrieved document from 
    IANA - but no progress.  Rob needs to follow up.
    David Black and Mike Eisler thanked Sun for sponsoring the IETF.
    Shepler proposes high bandwidth one day meeting in June in connection with 
    testing event at UMich.  beepy RTFM the IESG web page.
    The group ended with a big thank you to our outgoing Area Director Scott 
    Bradner for his guidance and support throughout the development of the V4 


    NFSv4 Minor Revisions