< draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-08.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09.txt >
Network File System Version 4 C. Lever, Ed. Network File System Version 4 C. Lever, Ed.
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Obsoletes: 5667 (if approved) April 4, 2017 Obsoletes: 5667 (if approved) April 10, 2017
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 6, 2017 Expires: October 12, 2017
Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA Version
One One
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-08 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System This document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System
(NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA Version One, enabling the (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA Version One, enabling the
use of Direct Data Placement. This document obsoletes RFC 5667. use of Direct Data Placement. This document obsoletes RFC 5667.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 45 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
5. Upper Layer Binding For NFS Version 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Upper Layer Binding For NFS Version 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. DDP-Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. DDP-Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Reply Size Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Reply Size Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. RPC Binding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. RPC Binding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. NFS COMPOUND Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. NFS COMPOUND Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. NFS Callback Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.5. NFS Callback Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Session-Related Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.6. Session-Related Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.7. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Extending NFS Upper Layer Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Extending NFS Upper Layer Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 5667 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 5667 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The RPC-over-RDMA Version One transport may employ direct data The RPC-over-RDMA Version One transport may employ direct data
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 37
o If a READ operation returns a union arm which does not contain a o If a READ operation returns a union arm which does not contain a
DDP-eligible result, and the NFS version 4 client has provided a DDP-eligible result, and the NFS version 4 client has provided a
matching non-empty Write chunk, an NFS version 4 server MUST matching non-empty Write chunk, an NFS version 4 server MUST
return an empty Write chunk in that Write list position. return an empty Write chunk in that Write list position.
o If there are more READ operations than Write chunks, then o If there are more READ operations than Write chunks, then
remaining NFS Read operations in an NFS version 4 COMPOUND that remaining NFS Read operations in an NFS version 4 COMPOUND that
have no matching Write chunk MUST return their results inline. have no matching Write chunk MUST return their results inline.
If an NFS version 4 client sends an RPC Call with a Write list that
contains more chunks than an NFS version 4 server is prepared to
process, the server MUST reject the RPC by responding with an
RDMA_ERROR message with the rdma_err value set to ERR_CHUNK.
If an NFS version 4 client sends an RPC Call with a Read list that
contains more chunks than an NFS version 4 server is prepared to
process, the server MUST reject the RPC by responding with an
RDMA_MSG message containing an RPC Reply with an accept status of
GARBAGE_ARGS, or with an RDMA_ERROR message with the rdma_err value
set to ERR_CHUNK.
5.4.2. NFS Version 4 COMPOUND Example 5.4.2. NFS Version 4 COMPOUND Example
The following example shows a Write list with three Write chunks, A, The following example shows a Write list with three Write chunks, A,
B, and C. The NFS version 4 server consumes the provided Write B, and C. The NFS version 4 server consumes the provided Write
chunks by writing the results of the designated operations in the chunks by writing the results of the designated operations in the
compound request (READ and READLINK) back to each chunk. compound request (READ and READLINK) back to each chunk.
Write list: Write list:
A --> B --> C A --> B --> C
skipping to change at page 11, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 41
The presence of an NFS session (defined in [RFC5661]) has no effect The presence of an NFS session (defined in [RFC5661]) has no effect
on the operation of RPC-over-RDMA Version One. None of the on the operation of RPC-over-RDMA Version One. None of the
operations introduced to support NFS sessions (e.g. the SEQUENCE operations introduced to support NFS sessions (e.g. the SEQUENCE
operation) contain DDP-eligible data items. There is no need to operation) contain DDP-eligible data items. There is no need to
match the number of session slots with the number of available RPC- match the number of session slots with the number of available RPC-
over-RDMA credits. over-RDMA credits.
However, there are a few new cases where an RPC transaction can fail. However, there are a few new cases where an RPC transaction can fail.
For example, a requester might receive, in response to an RPC For example, a requester might receive, in response to an RPC
request, an RDMA_ERROR message with an rdma_err value of ERR_CHUNK, request, an RDMA_ERROR message with an rdma_err value of ERR_CHUNK.
or an RDMA_MSG containing an RPC_GARBAGEARGS reply. These situations These situations are no different from existing RPC errors which an
are no different from existing RPC errors which an NFS session NFS session implementation is already prepared to handle for other
implementation is already prepared to handle for other transports. transports. And as with other transports during such a failure,
And as with other transports during such a failure, there might be no there might be no SEQUENCE result available to the requester to
SEQUENCE result available to the requester to distinguish whether distinguish whether failure occurred before or after the requested
failure occurred before or after the requested operations were operations were executed on the responder.
executed on the responder.
When a transport error occurs (e.g. RDMA_ERROR), the requester When a transport error occurs (e.g. RDMA_ERROR), the requester
proceeds as usual to match the incoming XID value to a waiting RPC proceeds as usual to match the incoming XID value to a waiting RPC
Call. The RPC transaction is terminated, and the result status is Call. The RPC transaction is terminated, and the result status is
reported to the Upper Layer Protocol. The requester's session reported to the Upper Layer Protocol. The requester's session
implementation then determines the session ID and slot for the failed implementation then determines the session ID and slot for the failed
request, and performs slot recovery to make that slot usable again. request, and performs slot recovery to make that slot usable again.
If this is not done, that slot could be rendered permanently If this is not done, that slot could be rendered permanently
unavailable. unavailable.
skipping to change at page 17, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 38
[RFC5667]. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg [RFC5667]. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg
Marsden for their support of this work. Marsden for their support of this work.
Dave Noveck provided excellent review, constructive suggestions, and Dave Noveck provided excellent review, constructive suggestions, and
consistent navigational guidance throughout the process of drafting consistent navigational guidance throughout the process of drafting
this document. Dave also contributed the text of Section 5.6 and this document. Dave also contributed the text of Section 5.6 and
Section 6, and insisted on precise discussion of reply size Section 6, and insisted on precise discussion of reply size
estimation. estimation.
Thanks to Karen Deitke for her sharp observations about idempotency, Thanks to Karen Deitke for her sharp observations about idempotency,
and the clarity of the discussion of NFS COMPOUNDs and NFS sessions. NFS COMPOUNDs, and NFS sessions.
Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, nfsv4 Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, nfsv4
Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler, and nfsv4 Working Group Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler, and nfsv4 Working Group
Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support. Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support.
Author's Address Author's Address
Charles Lever (editor) Charles Lever (editor)
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue 1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ann Arbor, MI 48104
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 25 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/