Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04
Chuck Lever <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nfsv4 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi everyone (but especially Tom) - > On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Tom Talpey <[email protected]> wrote: > > TL;DR Proposed Standard is appropriate. > > Longer version, I may be the guilty party here. When Chuck originally was exploring using private data to extend rpcrdmav1, I encouraged him to publish the format as a draft. By design, the private data is optional, for both the sender and the receiver. Its presence, and its recognition at the peer, drives the extended features. > > At the time, the concern for standardization was whether it would be of interest to the WG, and/or to other implementations. Its adoption as a WG item settles that. > > When published as Proposed Standard, the document should additionally be tagged as an optional extension to RFC8166. To address this issue, I've made the following changes to the document. Please let me know if additional changes are needed. I plan to separately address the other issues arising from the AD write-up. The status has been changed: Network File System Version 4 C. Lever Internet-Draft Oracle Updates: 8166 (if approved) November 6, 2019 Intended status: Standards Track Expires: May 9, 2020 The Abstract now reads: This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a connection. The addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an OPTIONAL extension that does not alter the RPC- over-RDMA version 1 protocol. This document updates RFC 8166. A paragraph has been added near the end of the Introduction: .... the base RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol defined in [RFC8166]. To enable current RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations to interoperate with implementations that support the message format described in the current document, the private message is not required to be present, and the message format does not alter the XDR definition of the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol. When the private message is not present, implementations conform to the defaults already found in [RFC8166]. The message format is intended to be further extensible within the .... -- Chuck Lever _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4