Hello Thomas and *Zahed (AD), Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated our files based on your responses. Please review and let us know if any further changes are needed or if you approve the document in its current form.
*Zahed, please review the Abstract and let us know if you approve the removal of some wording that was unclear. The change can be viewed below and in this file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-auth48diff.html. Abstract Original: During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server and the data servers work together to recover state (which files are open, last modification time, size, etc.). Current: During the recovery phase of startup, the MDS and the DSs work together to recover state. [From Thomas]: "We don’t expand on the state in the body of the document, so this should suffice”. —FILES— The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.xml The updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.html These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff files show all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9737 Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On Feb 6, 2025, at 6:05 PM, Thomas Haynes <log...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 6, 2025, at 4:29 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> 1) <!--[rfced] Title and Short Title >> >> a) May we update the document title for conciseness by >> removing "of" and rephrasing the text to reflect that >> the errors are reported "in NFSv4" as shown below? > > > Yes > >> >> b) May we update the short title that spans the header >> of the PDF file to more closely match the document title >> as shown below? >> > > > Yes > >> c) We note that "LAYOUTRETURN" is mentioned in the title but >> not in the Abstract or Introduction. Should "LAYOUTRETURN" >> be included to those sections for consistency with the title? >> If so, please provide the desired text. > > Abstract: > > > This document presents an > extension to RFC8435 to allow the client to update the metadata > and avoid the resilvering. > > becomes > > This document presents an > extension to RFC8435 to allow the client to update the metadata via > LAYOUTRETURN > and avoid the resilvering. > > > > I’m fine with the Introduction not mentioning LAYOUTRETURN as we immediately > dive into it in the next Section. > > >> >> Document Title >> Original: >> Reporting of Errors via LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2 >> >> Perhaps: >> Reporting Errors in NFSv4.2 via LAYOUTRETURN >> >> ... >> Short Title >> Original: >> LAYOUT_RECOVERY >> >> Perhaps: >> Reporting Errors via LAYOUTRETURN >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] We note that "MDS" and "DS" are expanded as "metadata >> server" and "data server", respectively, in RFC 8435. May we >> expand these terms in the Abstract as shown below (option A) to >> match RFC 8435? >> >> After these terms are expanded, would you like to use the abbreviations? >> There are 37 instances of "metadata server" and 2 instances of >> "data server". If not, and it is desired to have the term written out, >> should "MDS" and "DS" simply be removed since they are not used elsewhere >> in the document (option B)? Please let us know your preference. >> > > I’m not a big fan of the abbreviations, but it seems that RFC8881 does use > them. > > So yes, please the abbreviations once the terms are expanded. > > > > >> Original: >> The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata >> (MDS) and data (DS) to be on different servers. When the metadata >> server is restarted, the client can still modify the data file >> component. During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server >> and the data servers work together to recover state (which files are >> open, last modification time, size, etc.). >> >> Perhaps A: >> The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata >> and data to be on different servers (i.e., the metadata server (MDS) >> and the data server (DS)). >> > > > A > > >> or >> >> Perhaps B: >> The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata >> and data to be on different servers. >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "which files are open, last modification >> time, size, etc.)". Are these files used by the servers during >> the recovery phase? >> >> Original: >> During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server >> and the data servers work together to recover state >> (which files are open, last modification time, size, etc.). >> >> Perhaps: >> During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server >> and the data servers work together to recover state >> (the files used are "open", "last modification time", >> "size", etc.). >> --> >> > > > I’m struggling with fixing this one. I think it would be fine to rewrite it > as: > > During the > recovery phase of startup, the metadata server and the > data servers work together to recover state. > > We don’t expand on the state in the body of the document, so this should > suffice. > > >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Are >> words missing after "when a lrf_stateid with the value of the >> anonymous stateid of all zeros", or should "when a lrf_stateid" >> perhaps be "with an lrf_stateid"? Please review and let us >> know how we may clarify. >> >> Original: >> Also, when the metadata server builds the reply to the LAYOUTRETURN >> when a lrf_stateid with the value of the anonymous stateid of all >> zeros it MUST NOT bump the seqid of the lorr_stateid. >> >> Perhaps: >> Also, when the metadata server builds the reply to the LAYOUTRETURN >> with an lrf_stateid with an anonymous stateid value of all >> zeros, it MUST NOT bump the seqid of the lorr_stateid. >> --> >> > > > I agree the original sentence is hard to parse. > > I am fine with the proposed change. > > > > >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terms appear as lowercase in >> FCs 8435 and 8881. Should these terms be made lowercase to match >> se in those RFCs? >> >> Flexible File Layout >> Flexible File Layout Type >> --> >> > > > Yes > > > >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. > > > Nice link, I think we are safe in this document. > > > >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/kc >> >> >> On Feb 6, 2025, at 4:27 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/02/06 >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >> >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >> your approval. >> >> Planning your review >> --------------------- >> >> Please review the following aspects of your document: >> >> * RFC Editor questions >> >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >> follows: >> >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >> >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >> >> * Changes submitted by coauthors >> >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >> >> * Content >> >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >> - contact information >> - references >> >> * Copyright notices and legends >> >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >> >> * Semantic markup >> >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >> >> * Formatted output >> >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >> >> >> Submitting changes >> ------------------ >> >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >> include: >> >> * your coauthors >> >> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >> >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >> >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >> list: >> >> * More info: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> >> An update to the provided XML file >> — OR — >> An explicit list of changes in this format >> >> Section # (or indicate Global) >> >> OLD: >> old text >> >> NEW: >> new text >> >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >> >> >> Approving for publication >> -------------------------- >> >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> >> >> Files >> ----- >> >> The files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9737-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9737 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9737 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-04) >> >> Title : Reporting of Errors via LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2 >> Author(s) : T. Haynes, T. Myklebust >> WG Chair(s) : Brian Pawlowski, Christopher Inacio >> >> Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini >> >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
