Subject: [nfsv4] Fwd: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK

From: Matt Benjamin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:52:37 -0400

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Benjamin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email-masked]>
Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List <[email-masked]>, Jeff Layton
<[email-masked]>, "J . Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>, Chuck
Lever <[email-masked]>, Steve Dickson <[email-masked]>,
Anna Schumaker <[email-masked]>, Trond Myklebust
<[email-masked]>, Daniel Berrange <[email-masked]>,
NFSv4 <[email-masked]>

Hi Stefan,

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd
> support for the AF_VSOCK address family.  In order for this to be
> acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an
> IETF RFC.  Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK.
>
> My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested.  This draft
> RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus.
>

I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv."  Stream
orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and
VSOCK, not the reverse.  But really I think it's just more clear.

I think this draft needs to be sent to the IETF NFSv4 working group
alias, [email-masked].

Matt

--

Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.
315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103

http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage

tel.  734-821-5101
fax.  734-769-8938
cel.  734-216-5309

-- 

Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.
315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103

http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage

tel.  734-821-5101
fax.  734-769-8938
cel.  734-216-5309

---

From: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:08:14 +0100

> I think this draft needs to be sent to the IETF NFSv4 working group

Thanks.  Will send the next revision properly formatted to the NFSv4
working group.

Stefan

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:40:20 -0400

> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:08 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Don’t do that. Please submit a personal draft via:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/

once you have appropriate permission from RH legal
counsel to contribute to the IETF. Then approach the
working group to introduce your submitted document.

Thanks!

---

From: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:10:31 +0100

> working group to introduce your submitted document.

Okay, thanks!

Stefan

---

From: Matt Benjamin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:27:13 -0400

Hi Jeff,

This doc says they are:
https://vmsplice.net/~stefan/stefanha-kvm-forum-2015.pdf

But only stream sockets are mentioned here:
https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/VirtioVsock

Trond and Chuck suggested in an offline conversation a few weeks ago
that they could imagine a datagram version of the transport being
useful.  It's probably worth passing that alone.

Matt

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jeff Layton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 16:50 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
> Agreed. VSOCK is its own thing. It bears some resemblance to TCP, but
> calling it tcpv would be confusing. IIRC, Chuck only proposed that when
> we were discussing an alternative transport that would look more like a
> typical network.
>
> BTW: Does VSOCK have a connectionless mode, analogous to UDP? If so,
> then it may be nice to consider what the netid for that might look like
> as well, before we settle on any names.
> --
> Jeff Layton <[email-masked]>

-- 

Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.

tel.  734-821-5101
fax.  734-769-8938
cel.  734-216-5309

---

From: Matt Benjamin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:29:29 -0400

> useful.  It's probably worth passing that alone.

Sorry, I meant, "along."

Matt

-- 

Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.

tel.  734-821-5101
fax.  734-769-8938
cel.  734-216-5309

---

From: Jeff Layton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:16:42 -0400

---

From: Jeff Layton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:59:28 -0400

I agree -- that could be useful later. Given that, maybe we should call
the netids something like:

    vsockc: connected vsock
    vsockd: datagram vsock

AIUI, netids are just something we inherited from Sun when we got the
TI-RPC library. I don't think they are governed by any sort of
names+numbers authority, are they?

If not then we're probably define it to whatever we wish, though it
might be a good idea to talk to the Solaris folks and see if they have
any input as to the naming.

-- Jeff

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:06:00 -0400

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Jeff Layton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Jeff, the relevant authority is IANA, and that's the whole
point of this I-D: to request netid assignments and specify
the universal address format for the VSOCK AF.

--
Chuck Lever