Subject: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-haynes-nfsv4-layout-types-02 a WG item?

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 08:50:10 -0400

Hi Spencer,

Can we make this a WG item?

Thanks,
Tom

Considerations for a New pNFS Layout Type
                 draft-haynes-nfsv4-layout-types-02.txt

Abstract

   This document provides help in distinguishing between the
   requirements for Network File System (NFS) version 4.1's Parallel NFS
   (pNFS) and those those specifically directed to the pNFS File Layout.
   The lack of a clear separation between the two set of requirements
   may be troublesome for those trying to specify new Layout Types.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 06:47:21 +0000

Any comment from others in the WG about Tom's request?

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfsv4 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tom Haynes
> Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 5:50 AM
> To: nfsv4
> Subject: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-haynes-nfsv4-layout-types-02 a WG
> item?
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 08:57:19 -0400

It seems to me that this is a good idea.  Tom identified a gap within
RFC5661 and has done a good job in starting to fill it.  The working group
should discuss the details as part of the process of getting this new
document ready for publication as an RFC

I haven't reviewed the document in its entirety, but I have some
suggestions regarding the abstract etc:

   - There is a mismatch between the document name and the title.
    Provisionally suggest "Considerations for New pNFS Layout *Types*".
   - In the abstract, suggest changing "trying to specify" to "specifying
   and evaluating".
   - Also in that same sentence, suggest changing "may be" to "has been".
   - I believe that it would be appropriate to mark the resultant working
   group document as "updating (when approved), rfc5661".
   - Also suggest deleting "new" in the title and changing "considerations"
   to "requirements", making the title "Requirements for pNFS Layout Types"