2.8.8 Network File System Version 4 (nfsv4)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 58th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-10-16

Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@sun.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Transport Area Advisor:
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: nfsv4@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
Archive: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/nfsv4/current/maillist.html
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
Done  Strawman NFS V4 replication/migration protocol proposal submitted as an ID
Mar 03  ADs to submit API advancement internet draft as informational RFC (needed to advance GSSAPI to Draft Standard to allow advancement of NFS Version 4)
Mar 03  Continued interoperability testing of NFS Version 4
Apr 03  Internet draft on NFS V4 migration/replication requirements
Apr 03  AD review of NFS V4 migration/replication requirements draft
Apr 03  Creation of internet draft on ONC RPC MIB
Apr 03  Revision of internet draft on NFS MIB
Apr 03  Draft problem statement I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted
May 03  Document full Interoperability tests for all NFSv4 features
Jun 03  Depending on results of AD review of NFS Version 4 migration/replication requirements document, review scope of task
Jun 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
Jun 03  Draft requirements document I-D for NFS/RPC/RDDP submitted
Jun 03  Submit ONC RPC and NFS MIBs to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards
Jun 03  Submit an NFS V4 migration/replication protocol to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Jun 03  Submit report on results of NFS version 4 RFC interoperability testing
Jul 03  AD review of NFS/RPC/RDDP progress and charter
Jul 03  Interoperability tests of NFS V4 migration/replication
Aug 03  Submit revised NFS Version 4 Proposed Standard for consideration as Draft Standard to IESG
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-repl-mig-proto-01.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1832bis-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-ccm-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-secinfo-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-iana-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-01.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-nfsv4-channel-bindings-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
    RFC3530 PS Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol

    Current Meeting Report

    specification.Network File System Version 4 WG (nfsv4)
    Friday, November 14 at 0900-1130
    Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
    Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@sun.com>
    Welcome and Introduction            (Pawlowski)        5 min
    Agenda bash etc.
        - BLUE SHEETS
        - NOTE WELL
        - Status of drafts
    Bakeathon results and issues        (Shepler)         10 min
    Review of working group goals and milestones (Pawlowski) 10 min
    Minor revisions to NFSv4            (Shepler)         10 min
    Draft status and next steps         (Shepler)         10 min
    Transfer of RPC Numbering to IANA   (Shepler)         5 min
    Migration/replication status        (Shepler)         2 min
    Review of CCM Drafts                (Williams)        10 min
    Mapping Between NFSv4 and Posix Draft ACLs      (Shepler)       10 min
    NFS and RDMA/RDDP work              (Pawlowski)       10 min
    Open discussion                     (Pawlowski)       10 m
    Wrapup                              (Pawlowski)        5 m
    Spencer noted that Beepy would not be present at this WG meeting because of 
    Spencer presented the agenda to the very small group in attendance with no 
    additions; Noted well and blue sheets were presented.
    The October bakeathon results were presented noting the large number of 
    engineers (30+) and implementations (6) represented at the Austin, TX 
    event.  No specification issues were found during this event but there were 
    numerous discussions about implementation choices that did occur.  Those 
    leading the implementation discussions are encouraged to carry those 
    discussions into the WG alias.
    Spencer noted that progress in the Kerberos/NFS testing with all 
    implementations and extended features like migration starting to see some 
    work.  The next organized test event is Connectathon 2004 (see 
    www.connectathon.org for event details and the specific dates in 
    Spencer continued with a recap of the NFSv4 WG goals (see 
    presentation) noting the progress with the RDDP problem and 
    requirements statement.
    Spencer then moved on to discussion of NFSv4's minor versioning 
    mechanism and the ongoing discussion that has occurred within the 
    working group about management of minor versions within the context of the 
    working group charter and in the large of the IESG. Spencer noted the 
    level of activity in the working group and the areas of interest and 
    problem solving that seemed to point to healthy involvement and 
    reasonable direction; Spencer also noted the need for direction from the 
    Area Directors to ensure the WG was moving the an appropriate 
    direction.  The feedback from the AD in attendance (Allison Mankin) that the 
    WG activity and direction seemed appropriate.  The WG should, when 
    identifying a work area, involve the ADs for charter addition and 
    clarity of work items.
    Spencer moved onto the review of WG Drafts noting that the updated XDR 
    draft had cleared WG last call and is ready to move to IESG/IETF last call 
    for its final step to becoming an internet standard. Also noting the 
    updates to the RPC (RFC1831bis) draft and the need for progress in the 
    server-to-server migration/replication protocol.
    When noting the NFSv4 ACL mapping I-D that is active, Allison 
    mentioned that there is other work going on within the IETF around ACL 
    mechanisms and that it would be prudent for the NFSv4 WG to become 
    engaged in those discussions in some form.  ADs and WG co-chairs to work 
    this issue.
    The issue of transfer of the RPC numbering to IANA was presented. It was 
    noted that the IANA has been busy/unresponsive in general and the 
    general issue of IANA/IETF coordination is being worked. For this 
    specific issue, it was decided that the transfer details be worked as part of 
    the review of the updated RPC internet draft as it moves through 
    IESG/IETF approval instead of waiting on completion of the transfer 
    details before draft movement.
    The rest of the presentation covering the status of the 
    replication/migration, ACLs, and RDDP work items was covered without major 
    discussion or