RE: Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Christian, 

since draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10 is an extension for block and
volume-based layout of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26.tx
t 
and more information about recovery can be found in that NFSv4.1
document. 

Ciao
Hannes


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On 
>Behalf Of ext Christian Vogt
>Sent: 04 December, 2008 14:42
>To: IETF Discussion Mailing List
>Cc: nfsv4-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fridella_stephen@xxxxxxx; 
>black_david@xxxxxxx; nfsv4-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jglasgow@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10
>
>I was asked by the IESG to review the "pNFS Block/Volume Layout"
>specification [draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10], and I am 
>sharing my review on this list.  The specification is overall 
>in good shape and should proceed for publication soon.  I do 
>suggest addressing the following comments, though, before 
>forwarding the document to the RFC Editor.
>
>Technical:
>
>- Section 2.2.1 ("Volume Identification") specifies two methods for
>   identifying a position on a disk: by positive offset starting at the
>   beginning of the disk, and by negative offset starting at the end of
>   the disk.  The second method is limited to implementations where
>   server and client have the same understanding of the disk size. This
>   method could be generalized:  If you defined an offset, positive or
>   negative, to be in the context of the disk size as seen by the
>   client, then you may potentially also support implementations where
>   server and clients have a different understanding of the disk size.
>   The authors may consider this.
>
>- Section 2.4 ("Crash Recovery Issues") specifies recovery procedures
>   that a client could initiate following a server crash.  These
>   procedures apply in one specific condition, which is defined at the
>   beginning of the section ("When the server crashes while the client
>   holds a writable layout, and the client has written data to blocks
>   covered by the layout, and the blocks are still in the
>   PNFS_BLOCK_INVALID_DATA state, [then]...").  The section should also
>   consider other conditions.  It may be sufficient to explain why only
>   the described condition requires recovery.
>
>- Section 2.4 ("Crash Recovery Issues") does not explain how a client
>   detects a server crash.  The section should briefly explain this. It
>   may be sufficient to mention that crash detection is specified in a
>   related document, or that it is implementation-specific.
>
>Editorial:
>
>- The specification uses undefined acronyms in a couple of places,
>   including in the title.  Those should be spelled out when mentioned
>   the first time.  Search for "pNFS", "SAN", "XDR", "LUN" to find the
>   relevant places in the specification.
>
>Best regards,
>- Christian
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]