< draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-03.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-04.txt >
Internet-Draft Tom Talpey Internet-Draft Tom Talpey
Expires: December 2006 Brent Callaghan Expires: April 2007 Brent Callaghan
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-03 June, 2006 Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-04 October, 2007
NFS Direct Data Placement NFS Direct Data Placement
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 2, line 9 skipping to change at page 2, line 9
movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. This movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. This
draft describes the use of direct data placement by means of server- draft describes the use of direct data placement by means of server-
initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers in a Chunk initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers in a Chunk
list for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA list for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA
transport. transport.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 9 12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . 10
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The RDMA Transport for ONC RPC [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client The RDMA Transport for ONC RPC [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client
application to post buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments application to post buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments
and results from an RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this and results from an RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this
list of client buffer addresses to the server where the application list of client buffer addresses to the server where the application
can associate them with client data and use RDMA operations to can associate them with client data and use RDMA operations to
transfer the results directly to and from the posted buffers on the transfer the results directly to and from the posted buffers on the
client. The client and server must agree on a consistent mapping of client. The client and server must agree on a consistent mapping of
posted buffers to RPC. This document details the mapping for each posted buffers to RPC. This document details the mapping for each
version of the NFS protocol [RFC1831] [RFC1832] [RFC1094] [RFC1813] version of the NFS protocol [RFC1831] [RFC1832] [RFC1094] [RFC1813]
[RFC3530] [NFSv4.1]. [RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].
2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server 2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server
The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC
client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data, client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,
such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, may be referenced by such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, MAY be referenced by
an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an
RDMA READ operation initiated by the server. RDMA READ operation initiated by the server.
The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be
implemented entirely within the RPC layer. It is transparent to the implemented entirely within the RPC layer. It is transparent to the
upper-level protocol, such as NFS. For instance, the file data upper-level protocol, such as NFS. For instance, the file data
portion of an NFS WRITE request can be selected as an RDMA "chunk" portion of an NFS WRITE request can be selected as an RDMA "chunk"
within the XDR marshalling code of RPC based on a size criterion, within the XDR marshaling code of RPC based on a size criterion,
independently of the NFS protocol layer. The XDR unmarshalling on the independently of the NFS protocol layer. The XDR unmarshaling on the
receiving system can identify the correspondence between Read chunks receiving system can identify the correspondence between Read chunks
and protocol elements via the XDR position value encoded in the Read and protocol elements via the XDR position value encoded in the Read
chunk entry. chunk entry.
RPC RDMA Read chunks are employed by this NFS mapping to convey RPC RDMA Read chunks are employed by this NFS mapping to convey
specific NFS data to the server in a manner which may be directly specific NFS data to the server in a manner which may be directly
placed. The following sections describe this mapping for versions of placed. The following sections describe this mapping for versions of
the NFS protocol. the NFS protocol.
3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client 3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
struct xdr_write_chunk { struct xdr_write_chunk {
struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>; struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>;
}; };
struct xdr_write_list { struct xdr_write_list {
struct xdr_write_chunk entry; struct xdr_write_chunk entry;
struct xdr_write_list *next; struct xdr_write_list *next;
}; };
The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer, The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,
which must be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is which MUST be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is
too small, the server must return an XDR encode error. The server too small, the server MUST return an XDR encode error. The server
must return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively MUST return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively
filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled
or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total
size of the buffer segments. size of the buffer segments.
The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment
length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written
to each segment. Results returned by direct placement must not be to each segment. Results returned by direct placement MUST not be
returned by other methods, e.g. by read chunk list or inline. If no returned by other methods, e.g. by read chunk list or inline. If no
result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no
data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length
fields corresponding to the result. fields corresponding to the result.
The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result
buffers - each buffer must map to a specific result in the reply. The buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS
NFS client and server implementations must agree on the mapping of client and server implementations agree by specifying the mapping of
results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections
describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol. describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.
Through the use of RDMA Write lists in NFS requests, it is not Through the use of RDMA Write lists in NFS requests, it is not
necessary to employ the RDMA Read lists in the NFS replies, as necessary to employ the RDMA Read lists in the NFS replies, as
described in the RPC/RDMA protocol. This enables more efficient described in the RPC/RDMA protocol. This enables more efficient
operation, by avoiding the need for the server to expose buffers for operation, by avoiding the need for the server to expose buffers for
RDMA, and also avoiding "RDMA_DONE" exchanges. Clients may RDMA, and also avoiding "RDMA_DONE" exchanges. Clients MAY
additionally employ RDMA Reply chunks to receive entire messages, as additionally employ RDMA Reply chunks to receive entire messages, as
described in [RPCRDMA]. described in [RPCRDMA].
4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping 4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping
A single RDMA Write list entry may be posted by the client to receive A single RDMA Write list entry MAY be posted by the client to receive
either the opaque file data from a READ request or the pathname from either the opaque file data from a READ request or the pathname from
a READLINK request. The server will ignore a Write list for any a READLINK request. The server MUST ignore a Write list for any
other NFS procedure, as well as any Write list entries beyond the other NFS procedure, as well as any Write list entries beyond the
first in the list. first in the list.
Similarly, a single RDMA Read list entry may be posted by the client Similarly, a single RDMA Read list entry MAY be posted by the client
to supply the opaque file data for a WRITE request or the pathname to supply the opaque file data for a WRITE request or the pathname
for a SYMLINK request. The server will ignore any Read list for for a SYMLINK request. The server MUST ignore any Read list for
other NFS procedures, as well as additional Read list entries beyond other NFS procedures, as well as additional Read list entries beyond
the first in the list. the first in the list.
Because there are no NFS version 2 or 3 requests that transfer bulk Because there are no NFS version 2 or 3 requests that transfer bulk
data in both directions, it is not necessary to post requests data in both directions, it is not necessary to post requests
containing both Write and Read lists. Any unneeded Read or Write containing both Write and Read lists. Any unneeded Read or Write
lists are ignored by the server. lists are ignored by the server.
In the case where the outgoing request or expected incoming reply is In the case where the outgoing request or expected incoming reply is
larger than the maximum size supported on the connection, it is larger than the maximum size supported on the connection, it is
possible for the RPC layer to post the entire message or result in a possible for the RPC layer to post the entire message or result in a
special "RDMA_NOMSG" message type which is transferred entirely by special "RDMA_NOMSG" message type which is transferred entirely by
RDMA. This is implemented in RPC, below NFS and therefore has no RDMA. This is implemented in RPC, below NFS and therefore has no
effect on the message contents. effect on the message contents.
Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers may optionally employ the Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the "RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
fashion, which may improve server performance. fashion, which may improve server performance.
The NFS version 2 and 3 protocols are frequently limited in practice The NFS version 2 and 3 protocols are frequently limited in practice
to requests containing less than or equal to 8 kilobytes and 32 to requests containing less than or equal to 8 kilobytes and 32
kilobytes of data, respectively. In these cases, it is often kilobytes of data, respectively. In these cases, it is often
practical to support basic operation without employing a practical to support basic operation without employing a
configuration exchange as discussed in [RPCRDMA]. The server can configuration exchange as discussed in [RPCRDMA]. The server MUST
post buffers large enough to receive the largest possible incoming post buffers large enough to receive the largest possible incoming
message (approximately 12KB/36KB would be vastly sufficient in the message (approximately 12KB for NFS version 2, or 36KB for NFS
above cases), and the client can post buffers large enough to receive version 3, would be vastly sufficient), and the client can post
replies based on the "rsize" it is using to the server. Because the buffers large enough to receive replies based on the "rsize" it is
server will never return data in excess of this size, the client can using to the server, plus a fixed overhead for the RPC and NFS
be assured of the adequacy of its posted buffer sizes. headers. Because the server MUST NOT return data in excess of this
size, the client can be assured of the adequacy of its posted buffer
sizes.
Flow control is handled dynamically by the RPC RDMA protocol, and Flow control is handled dynamically by the RPC RDMA protocol, and
write padding is optional and therefore may remain unused. write padding is OPTIONAL and therefore MAY remain unused.
Alternatively, if the server is administratively configured to values Alternatively, if the server is administratively configured to values
appropriate for all its clients, the same assurance of appropriate for all its clients, the same assurance of
interoperability within the domain can be made. interoperability within the domain can be made.
The use of a configuration protocol with NFS v2 and v3 is therefore The use of a configuration protocol with NFS v2 and v3 is therefore
optional. Employing a configuration exchange may allow some advantage OPTIONAL. Employing a configuration exchange may allow some advantage
to server resource management through accurately sizing buffers, to server resource management through accurately sizing buffers,
enabling the server to know exactly how many RDMA Reads may be in enabling the server to know exactly how many RDMA Reads may be in
progress at once on the client connection, and enabling client write progress at once on the client connection, and enabling client write
padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is
impractical. impractical.
5. NFS Version 4 Mapping 5. NFS Version 4 Mapping
This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version
4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override 4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override
this mapping. this mapping.
The Write list will be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure. The Write list MUST be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.
This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only
the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname
from a READLINK operation will utilize entries from the Write list. from a READLINK operation MUST utilize entries from the Write list.
If there is no Write list, i.e. the list is null, then any READ or If there is no Write list, i.e. the list is null, then any READ or
READLINK operations in the COMPOUND must return their data inline. READLINK operations in the COMPOUND MUST return their data inline.
The NFSv4.0 client must ensure that any result of its READ and The NFSv4.0 client MUST ensure that any result of its READ and
READLINK requests must fit within its receive buffers, or an RDMA READLINK requests fits within its receive buffers, lest an RDMA
transport error may occur. transport error result upon transfer.
The first entry in the Write list must be used by the first READ or The first entry in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ or
READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the
by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or
READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining
operations must return their results inline. operations MUST return their results inline.
If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or
READLINK must return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer READLINK MUST return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer
indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero
RDMA segments, or if the total size of the segments is zero, then the RDMA segments, or if the total size of the segments is zero, then the
corresponding READ or READLINK operation must return its result corresponding READ or READLINK operation MUST return its result
inline. inline.
The following example shows an RDMA Write list with three posted The following example shows an RDMA Write list with three posted
buffers A, B, and C. The designated operations in the compound buffers A, B, and C. The designated operations in the compound
request, READ and READLINK, consume the posted buffers by writing request, READ and READLINK, consume the posted buffers by writing
their results back to each buffer. their results back to each buffer.
RDMA Write list: RDMA Write list:
A --> B --> C A --> B --> C
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
Compound request: Compound request:
PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ
| | | | | |
v v v v v v
A B C A B C
If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned
directly, then it provides a zero length array of segment triplets directly, then it provides a zero length array of segment triplets
for buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B for buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B
to zeros so that the READLINK result will be returned inline. to zeros so that the READLINK result MUST be returned inline.
The situation is similar for RDMA Read lists sent by the client and The situation is similar for RDMA Read lists sent by the client and
applies to the NFSv4.0 WRITE and SYMLINK procedures as for v3. applies to the NFSv4.0 WRITE and SYMLINK procedures as for v3.
Additionally, inline segments too large to fit in posted buffers may
Additionally, inline segments too large to fit in posted buffers MAY
be transferred in special "RDMA_NOMSG" messages. be transferred in special "RDMA_NOMSG" messages.
Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers may optionally employ the Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the "RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure
accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will
restrict its use of optional padding to COMPOUND requests containing restrict its use of OPTIONAL padding to COMPOUND requests containing
only a single WRITE operation. only a single WRITE operation.
Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4 Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4
COMPOUND is unbounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it COMPOUND is unbounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it
might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one
described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues
involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism
unworkable. Instead, an extension to NFS version 4 supporting a more unworkable.
comprehensive exchange of upper layer (NFSv4) parameters is proposed
in [NFSv4.1]. This proposal also addresses other use of the sizes, However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic
such as in the server's response cache. requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in
fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.
Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the
same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.
There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to
operate with prearranged sie constraints, for example use of the
sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to
NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer
parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].
6. Security 6. Security
The RDMA transport for ONC RPC supports RPCSEC_GSS security as well The RDMA transport for ONC RPC supports RPCSEC_GSS security as well
as link-level security. The use of RDMA Write to return RPC results as link-level security. The use of RDMA Write to return RPC results
does not affect ONC RPC security. does not affect ONC RPC security.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
NFS use of direct data placement may introduce a need for an NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional
additional NFS port number assignment for networks which share NFS port number assignment for networks which share traditional UDP
traditional UDP and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP [DDP] [RDMAP]
[DDP] [RDMAP] protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not). protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).
NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally
listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they
register these with the portmapper. NFS servers for version 4 register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.
[RFC3050] are required to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not However, NFS servers for version 4 [RFC3530] are required by that
required to register. specification to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not required to
register.
An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a
network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper may choose an network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an
arbitrary port, or may be assigned an alternative well-known port arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for
number for its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port must be its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port MAY be registered with
registered with the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in
requirement in [RPCRDMA]. [RPCRDMA].
An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network must be
assigned an alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA
service by IANA. Clients will connect to this well-known port
without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP).
Any subsequent NFS version 4 minor version's [NFSv4.1] server may An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network must
reuse port 2049, by requiring the client to perform the RDMA session MUST use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA
negotiation supported by this protocol. If it does not require the service by IANA. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port
client to negotiate an RDMA-enabled session, it must use the without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP). The
alternative port for RPC/RDMA, as for version 4. following port is assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA
transport:
This is not an issue on non-IP transports such as native Infiniband, nfs-rdma 2050
where a non-colliding port translation scheme is used [IBPORT]. On
such interfaces, the server can simply listen on the port mapped from
the IANA-assigned NFS 2049, or any other port as assigned by the
native transport. Such assignments are out of the scope of IANA, and
of this document.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for
their contributions to this document. their contributions to this document.
9. Normative References 9. Normative References
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels",
Best Current Practice,
BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC1831] [RFC1831]
R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
Version 2", Version 2",
Standards Track RFC, Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt
[RFC1832] [RFC1832]
R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
Standards Track RFC, Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt
skipping to change at page 8, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification", "NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",
(NFS version 2) Informational RFC, (NFS version 2) Informational RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
[RFC1813] [RFC1813]
B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol
Specification", Specification",
Informational RFC, Informational RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt
[RFC1833]
R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt
[RFC3530] [RFC3530]
S. Shepler, B. Callaghan, D. Robinson, R. Thurlow, C. Beame, M. S. Shepler, B. Callaghan, D. Robinson, R. Thurlow, C. Beame, M.
Eisler, D. Noveck, "NFS version 4 Protocol", Eisler, D. Noveck, "NFS version 4 Protocol",
Standards Track RFC, Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt
10. Informative References 10. Informative References
[RPCRDMA] [RPCRDMA]
T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC" T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC"
Internet Draft Work in Progress, Internet Draft Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma
[NFSv4.1] [NFSv4.1]
S. Shepler, ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1" S. Shepler et. al., ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"
Internet Draft Work in Progress, Internet Draft Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1 draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1
[DDP] [DDP]
H. Shah et al, "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports", H. Shah et al, "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
Internet Draft Work in Progress, Standards Track RFC,
draft-ietf-rddp-ddp draft-ietf-rddp-ddp
[RDMAP] [RDMAP]
R. Recio et al, "An RDMA Protocol Specification", R. Recio et al, "An RDMA Protocol Specification",
Internet Draft Work in Progress, Standards Track RFC,
draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap
[IBPORT]
Infiniband Trade Association, "IP Addressing Annex",
available from www.infinibandta.org
11. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Tom Talpey Tom Talpey
Network Appliance, Inc. Network Appliance, Inc.
375 Totten Pond Road 375 Totten Pond Road
Waltham, MA 02451 USA Waltham, MA 02451 USA
Phone: +1 781 768 5329 Phone: +1 781 768 5329
EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com
Brent Callaghan Brent Callaghan
Apple Computer, Inc. Apple Computer, Inc.
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 98 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/