Subject: [nfsv4] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7530 (5531)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 22:38:11 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7530,
"Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5531

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Sylvain Etienne <[email-masked]>

Section: 10.4.6.

Original Text
-------------
   o  When the callback path is down, the server MUST NOT revoke the
      delegation if one of the following occurs:

      *  (...)

      *  The client has not issued a RENEW operation for some period of
         time after the server attempted to recall the delegation.  This
         period of time MUST NOT be less than the value of the
         lease_time attribute.

Corrected Text
--------------
   o  When the callback path is down, the server MUST NOT revoke the
      delegation if one of the following occurs:

      *  (...)

      *  The client has not issued a RENEW operation for some period of
         time after the server attempted to recall the delegation.  This
         period of time MUST be less than the value of the
         lease_time attribute.

Notes
-----
It does not make sense to revoke the delegation before lease_time period expiration and to not revoke it after.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7530 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-35)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
Publication Date    : March 2015
Author(s)           : T. Haynes, Ed., D. Noveck, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Network File System Version 4
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Trond Myklebust <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:57:30 -0400

> "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol".
As I read it, this proposal will do precisely the opposite of its
intention. The changed wording appears to state that the server can now
choose a time that is less than the lease_time attribute, and if the client
has not issued a RENEW operation during that time then it is obliged to not
revoke the delegation.
IOW: it is not obliged to follow this rule for times > the chosen time,
which is less than the lease_time.

To me, the issue that is causing confusion in the current wording is the
double negative. What we should be saying here is that "if the client sends
a RENEW within 1 lease period of the previous lease renewing operation,
then the server MUST NOT revoke the delegation". However we instead get
bogged down in discussions about what happens if the client does _not_ send
said RENEW.

Cheers
   Trond

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Bruce Fields)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:27:49 -0400

> bogged down in discussions about what happens if the client does _not_ send

Yeah, the existing language is very convoluted.

--b.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 07:26:40 -0400

Agree that this needs to be changed.   With regard to the specific wording
of the change, suggest that we reeplace the current paragraph reading:

         The client has not issued a RENEW operation for some period of
         time after the server attempted to recall the delegation.  This
         period of time MUST NOT be less than the value of the
         lease_time attribute.

By the following:

The client has sent a RENEW operation within one lease period from the time

the server attempted to recall the delegation.

You might also want to add the following paragrph at the end of the section.

The above rules do not prevent the Client from losing a delegation as part
of

losing its lease, due to lack of proper lease renewal.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:27 AM J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>