This draft generally looks good. Looking at this from a SCSI standards perspective, I found a few small things. The 512 vs. 4k block size (2.3.1) and reservation scope (2.4.10.3) items are important - everything else is editorial, although clarity on commonality with RFC 5663 would be of significant help to any implementer who has exposure to that. -- Introduction, last paragraph. Add a sentence saying that there are no other significant differences from RFC 5663 (previous sentences indicate use of SCSI for fencing and LAYOUTCOMMIT improvements), e.g., the volume topology (Section 2.3.2) and data structures that describe extents (Section 2.3.3.) are common with RFC 5663. Those two examples seem important. -- Section 2.1, 1st paragraph " and the SCSI initiators used for the pNFS Metadata Server and clients MUST support SCSI persistent reservations." Add a citation of [SPC4] to support that MUST requirement. -- Section 2.1, 2nd paragraph: Clients MUST be able to perform I/O to the block extents without affecting additional areas of storage (especially important for writes); therefore, extents MUST be aligned to 512-byte boundaries. That assumes a 512 byte logical block size, which is generally ok for now, but 4k is coming. At a minimum, "extents MUST be aligned to logical block size boundaries of the logical units, e.g., 512 bytes." OTOH, would it be reasonable to just make 4k alignment a MUST now, as there will be storage systems that need 4k alignment and 4k alignment generally works better than 512-byte alignment with existing systems? -- Section 2.3.1 It is similar to the "Identification Descriptor Target Descriptor" specified in [SPC4], but limits the allowed values to those that uniquely identify a LU. I suggest just deleting this sentence, as that is now called an "Identification CSCD Descriptor" - if this sentence is retained, the use of those descriptors in EXTENDED COPY would be important to mention - that seems like a diversion. 2. The "DESIGNATOR TYPE" MUST be set to one of four values T10 is now allowing UUIDs to also be used in the working draft of SPC-5, and those would be appropriate here. Nonetheless, I suggest no change until SPC-5 is completed at T10, as this draft is (properly, IMHO) based on SPC-4. -- Section 2.4.10.3 To make sure all I_T nexuses are registered, the client SHOULD set the "All Target Ports" (ALL_TG_PT) bit when registering the key, or otherwise ensure the registration is performed for each initiator port. It looks like initiator and target registration scopes were conflated here and need to be separated. Suggested text: To make sure all I_T nexuses are registered, the client SHOULD set the "All Target Ports" (ALL_TG_PT) bit when registering the key, or otherwise ensure the registration is performed for each target port, and MUST perform registration for each initiator port. -- References Current version of SAM is SAM-5, consider updating SAM-4 reference to SAM-5. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: nfsv4 [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:08 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx; nfsv4-chairs@xxxxxxxx; nfsv4@xxxxxxxx; > draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS > (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG > (nfsv4) to consider the following document: > - 'Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout' > <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2016-07-12. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows a separation between > the metadata (onto a metadata server) and data (onto a storage > device) for a file. The SCSI Layout Type is defined in this document > as an extension to pNFS to allow the use SCSI based block storage > devices. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4