Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:30:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers
	Author(s)       : M. Eisler
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-01.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2008-08-18

This Internet-Draft lists IANA Considerations for RPC Network
Identifiers (netids).  This Internet-Draft updates, but does not
replace, RFC1833.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:15:13 -0700

I looked at the diff between -00 and -01 and I think this is in good  
enough shape to IETF last call. The chairs will need to request  
publication by sending a document writeup.

Lars

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:38:39 -0500

> publication by sending a document writeup.

Great.  I will have this out in a couple of hours.

Spencer

---

From: "Mike Eisler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:52:52 -0700 (PDT)

Please hold off doing this.

When I started today to make the edits on the NFSv4.1 i-d from
Lars' AD review, I stopped at these comments:

Section 3.3.9., paragraph 0:
 > 3.3.9.  netaddr4

   Does anything in this section change now that we have
   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid? Should this new document be cited
   somewhere?

Section 3.3.9., paragraph 2:
 > The netaddr4 data type is used to identify TCP/IP based endpoints.
 > The r_netid and r_addr fields are specified in RFC1833 [26], but they
 > are underspecified in RFC1833 [26] as far as what they should look
 > like for specific protocols.  The next section clarifies this.

   This sounds like this document should update RFC1833?

--------------

When I looked at this more, I realized that the nfsv4.1 i-d
defines the universal address formats, which, like netids,
should not be defined in the NFSv4.1 i-d or the rpcrdma i-d.
I started to add IANA considerations for universal address formats
to draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid.

I know this will slow us down, but I expect to push -02 of the netid
i-d today, so it is a 24 hour slow down.

-- 
Mike Eisler, Senior Technical Director, NetApp, 719 599 9026,
http://blogs.netapp.com/eislers_nfs_blog/

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:15:04 -0500

Do we want a separate document for that registry?

Is there a technical reason to bind the two or are we building
on top of the processing of this particular I-D?

Spencer

---

From: "Mike Eisler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:06 -0700 (PDT)

> Do we want a separate document for that registry?

If we had a separate document, we'd still need to have the netid i-d
make a normative reference to the address formats i-d: a requester (to
RPCBIND, to NFSv4, and for whatever purpose RPC-RDMA uses netids for)

That said, since most of the reason for a netid is to discern the
transport and its address format, a combined document makes sense. Folks
can opine once they see -02 of the netid i-d, and if the consensus is to
split them, it won't be hard to do so.

Keep in mind that RFC1833, in hind-sight, should have had these registries
defined in the IANA considerations. I suspect 1833bis is in our future,
but
I don't want it to be in our (or my) near future. :-)

> on top of the processing of this particular I-D?

The processing is not a big deal either way ... as long as the latency
for approving a new -00 can be under a day. :-)

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:45:48 -0500

> split them, it won't be hard to do so.

Let's keep them together; just wanted to check.

> I don't want it to be in our (or my) near future. :-)

Right.

> for approving a new -00 can be under a day. :-)

I heard that.

Spencer