draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-03.txt		draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-04.txt
	Internet-Draft Tom Talpey		Internet-Draft Tom Talpey
	Expires: December 2006 Brent Callaghan		Expires: April 2007 Brent Callaghan
	Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-03 June, 2006		Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-04 October, 2007
	NFS Direct Data Placement		NFS Direct Data Placement
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 9		skipping to change at page 2, line 9
	movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. This		movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. This
	draft describes the use of direct data placement by means of server-		draft describes the use of direct data placement by means of server-
	initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers in a Chunk		initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers in a Chunk
	list for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA		list for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA
	transport.		transport.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 2		3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 9		12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . 10
	Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Requirements Language
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
			document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The RDMA Transport for ONC RPC [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client		The RDMA Transport for ONC RPC [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client
	application to post buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments		application to post buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments
	and results from an RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this		and results from an RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this
	list of client buffer addresses to the server where the application		list of client buffer addresses to the server where the application
	can associate them with client data and use RDMA operations to		can associate them with client data and use RDMA operations to
	transfer the results directly to and from the posted buffers on the		transfer the results directly to and from the posted buffers on the
	client. The client and server must agree on a consistent mapping of		client. The client and server must agree on a consistent mapping of
	posted buffers to RPC. This document details the mapping for each		posted buffers to RPC. This document details the mapping for each
	version of the NFS protocol [RFC1831] [RFC1832] [RFC1094] [RFC1813]		version of the NFS protocol [RFC1831] [RFC1832] [RFC1094] [RFC1813]
	[RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].		[RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].
	2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server		2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server
	The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC		The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC
	client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,		client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,
	such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, may be referenced by		such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, MAY be referenced by
	an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an		an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an
	RDMA READ operation initiated by the server.		RDMA READ operation initiated by the server.
	The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be		The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be
	implemented entirely within the RPC layer. It is transparent to the		implemented entirely within the RPC layer. It is transparent to the
	upper-level protocol, such as NFS. For instance, the file data		upper-level protocol, such as NFS. For instance, the file data
	portion of an NFS WRITE request can be selected as an RDMA "chunk"		portion of an NFS WRITE request can be selected as an RDMA "chunk"
	within the XDR marshalling code of RPC based on a size criterion,		within the XDR marshaling code of RPC based on a size criterion,
	independently of the NFS protocol layer. The XDR unmarshalling on the		independently of the NFS protocol layer. The XDR unmarshaling on the
	receiving system can identify the correspondence between Read chunks		receiving system can identify the correspondence between Read chunks
	and protocol elements via the XDR position value encoded in the Read		and protocol elements via the XDR position value encoded in the Read
	chunk entry.		chunk entry.
	RPC RDMA Read chunks are employed by this NFS mapping to convey		RPC RDMA Read chunks are employed by this NFS mapping to convey
	specific NFS data to the server in a manner which may be directly		specific NFS data to the server in a manner which may be directly
	placed. The following sections describe this mapping for versions of		placed. The following sections describe this mapping for versions of
	the NFS protocol.		the NFS protocol.
	3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client		3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client
	skipping to change at page 3, line 42		skipping to change at page 3, line 47
	struct xdr_write_chunk {		struct xdr_write_chunk {
	struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>;		struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>;
	};		};
	struct xdr_write_list {		struct xdr_write_list {
	struct xdr_write_chunk entry;		struct xdr_write_chunk entry;
	struct xdr_write_list *next;		struct xdr_write_list *next;
	};		};
	The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,		The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,
	which must be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is		which MUST be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is
	too small, the server must return an XDR encode error. The server		too small, the server MUST return an XDR encode error. The server
	must return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively		MUST return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively
	filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled		filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled
	or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total		or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total
	size of the buffer segments.		size of the buffer segments.
	The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment		The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment
	length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written		length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written
	to each segment. Results returned by direct placement must not be		to each segment. Results returned by direct placement MUST not be
	returned by other methods, e.g. by read chunk list or inline. If no		returned by other methods, e.g. by read chunk list or inline. If no
	result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no		result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no
	data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length		data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length
	fields corresponding to the result.		fields corresponding to the result.
	The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result		The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result
	buffers - each buffer must map to a specific result in the reply. The		buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS
	NFS client and server implementations must agree on the mapping of		client and server implementations agree by specifying the mapping of
	results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections		results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections
	describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.		describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.
	Through the use of RDMA Write lists in NFS requests, it is not		Through the use of RDMA Write lists in NFS requests, it is not
	necessary to employ the RDMA Read lists in the NFS replies, as		necessary to employ the RDMA Read lists in the NFS replies, as
	described in the RPC/RDMA protocol. This enables more efficient		described in the RPC/RDMA protocol. This enables more efficient
	operation, by avoiding the need for the server to expose buffers for		operation, by avoiding the need for the server to expose buffers for
	RDMA, and also avoiding "RDMA_DONE" exchanges. Clients may		RDMA, and also avoiding "RDMA_DONE" exchanges. Clients MAY
	additionally employ RDMA Reply chunks to receive entire messages, as		additionally employ RDMA Reply chunks to receive entire messages, as
	described in [RPCRDMA].		described in [RPCRDMA].
	4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping		4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping
	A single RDMA Write list entry may be posted by the client to receive		A single RDMA Write list entry MAY be posted by the client to receive
	either the opaque file data from a READ request or the pathname from		either the opaque file data from a READ request or the pathname from
	a READLINK request. The server will ignore a Write list for any		a READLINK request. The server MUST ignore a Write list for any
	other NFS procedure, as well as any Write list entries beyond the		other NFS procedure, as well as any Write list entries beyond the
	first in the list.		first in the list.
	Similarly, a single RDMA Read list entry may be posted by the client		Similarly, a single RDMA Read list entry MAY be posted by the client
	to supply the opaque file data for a WRITE request or the pathname		to supply the opaque file data for a WRITE request or the pathname
	for a SYMLINK request. The server will ignore any Read list for		for a SYMLINK request. The server MUST ignore any Read list for
	other NFS procedures, as well as additional Read list entries beyond		other NFS procedures, as well as additional Read list entries beyond
	the first in the list.		the first in the list.
	Because there are no NFS version 2 or 3 requests that transfer bulk		Because there are no NFS version 2 or 3 requests that transfer bulk
	data in both directions, it is not necessary to post requests		data in both directions, it is not necessary to post requests
	containing both Write and Read lists. Any unneeded Read or Write		containing both Write and Read lists. Any unneeded Read or Write
	lists are ignored by the server.		lists are ignored by the server.
	In the case where the outgoing request or expected incoming reply is		In the case where the outgoing request or expected incoming reply is
	larger than the maximum size supported on the connection, it is		larger than the maximum size supported on the connection, it is
	possible for the RPC layer to post the entire message or result in a		possible for the RPC layer to post the entire message or result in a
	special "RDMA_NOMSG" message type which is transferred entirely by		special "RDMA_NOMSG" message type which is transferred entirely by
	RDMA. This is implemented in RPC, below NFS and therefore has no		RDMA. This is implemented in RPC, below NFS and therefore has no
	effect on the message contents.		effect on the message contents.
	Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers may optionally employ the		Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
	"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the		"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
	appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding		appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
	allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned		allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
	fashion, which may improve server performance.		fashion, which may improve server performance.
	The NFS version 2 and 3 protocols are frequently limited in practice		The NFS version 2 and 3 protocols are frequently limited in practice
	to requests containing less than or equal to 8 kilobytes and 32		to requests containing less than or equal to 8 kilobytes and 32
	kilobytes of data, respectively. In these cases, it is often		kilobytes of data, respectively. In these cases, it is often
	practical to support basic operation without employing a		practical to support basic operation without employing a
	configuration exchange as discussed in [RPCRDMA]. The server can		configuration exchange as discussed in [RPCRDMA]. The server MUST
	post buffers large enough to receive the largest possible incoming		post buffers large enough to receive the largest possible incoming
	message (approximately 12KB/36KB would be vastly sufficient in the		message (approximately 12KB for NFS version 2, or 36KB for NFS
	above cases), and the client can post buffers large enough to receive		version 3, would be vastly sufficient), and the client can post
	replies based on the "rsize" it is using to the server. Because the		buffers large enough to receive replies based on the "rsize" it is
	server will never return data in excess of this size, the client can		using to the server, plus a fixed overhead for the RPC and NFS
	be assured of the adequacy of its posted buffer sizes.		headers. Because the server MUST NOT return data in excess of this
			size, the client can be assured of the adequacy of its posted buffer
			sizes.
	Flow control is handled dynamically by the RPC RDMA protocol, and		Flow control is handled dynamically by the RPC RDMA protocol, and
	write padding is optional and therefore may remain unused.		write padding is OPTIONAL and therefore MAY remain unused.
	Alternatively, if the server is administratively configured to values		Alternatively, if the server is administratively configured to values
	appropriate for all its clients, the same assurance of		appropriate for all its clients, the same assurance of
	interoperability within the domain can be made.		interoperability within the domain can be made.
	The use of a configuration protocol with NFS v2 and v3 is therefore		The use of a configuration protocol with NFS v2 and v3 is therefore
	optional. Employing a configuration exchange may allow some advantage		OPTIONAL. Employing a configuration exchange may allow some advantage
	to server resource management through accurately sizing buffers,		to server resource management through accurately sizing buffers,
	enabling the server to know exactly how many RDMA Reads may be in		enabling the server to know exactly how many RDMA Reads may be in
	progress at once on the client connection, and enabling client write		progress at once on the client connection, and enabling client write
	padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is		padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is
	impractical.		impractical.
	5. NFS Version 4 Mapping		5. NFS Version 4 Mapping
	This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version		This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version
	4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override		4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override
	this mapping.		this mapping.
	The Write list will be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.		The Write list MUST be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.
	This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only		This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only
	the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname		the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname
	from a READLINK operation will utilize entries from the Write list.		from a READLINK operation MUST utilize entries from the Write list.
	If there is no Write list, i.e. the list is null, then any READ or		If there is no Write list, i.e. the list is null, then any READ or
	READLINK operations in the COMPOUND must return their data inline.		READLINK operations in the COMPOUND MUST return their data inline.
	The NFSv4.0 client must ensure that any result of its READ and		The NFSv4.0 client MUST ensure that any result of its READ and
	READLINK requests must fit within its receive buffers, or an RDMA		READLINK requests fits within its receive buffers, lest an RDMA
	transport error may occur.		transport error result upon transfer.
	The first entry in the Write list must be used by the first READ or		The first entry in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ or
	READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the		READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the
	by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or		by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or
	READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining		READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining
	operations must return their results inline.		operations MUST return their results inline.
	If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or		If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or
	READLINK must return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer		READLINK MUST return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer
	indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero		indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero
	RDMA segments, or if the total size of the segments is zero, then the		RDMA segments, or if the total size of the segments is zero, then the
	corresponding READ or READLINK operation must return its result		corresponding READ or READLINK operation MUST return its result
	inline.		inline.
	The following example shows an RDMA Write list with three posted		The following example shows an RDMA Write list with three posted
	buffers A, B, and C. The designated operations in the compound		buffers A, B, and C. The designated operations in the compound
	request, READ and READLINK, consume the posted buffers by writing		request, READ and READLINK, consume the posted buffers by writing
	their results back to each buffer.		their results back to each buffer.
	RDMA Write list:		RDMA Write list:
	A --> B --> C		A --> B --> C
	skipping to change at page 6, line 37		skipping to change at page 6, line 45
	Compound request:		Compound request:
	PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ		PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ
	| | |		| | |
	v v v		v v v
	A B C		A B C
	If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned		If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned
	directly, then it provides a zero length array of segment triplets		directly, then it provides a zero length array of segment triplets
	for buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B		for buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B
	to zeros so that the READLINK result will be returned inline.		to zeros so that the READLINK result MUST be returned inline.
	The situation is similar for RDMA Read lists sent by the client and		The situation is similar for RDMA Read lists sent by the client and
	applies to the NFSv4.0 WRITE and SYMLINK procedures as for v3.		applies to the NFSv4.0 WRITE and SYMLINK procedures as for v3.
	Additionally, inline segments too large to fit in posted buffers may
			Additionally, inline segments too large to fit in posted buffers MAY
	be transferred in special "RDMA_NOMSG" messages.		be transferred in special "RDMA_NOMSG" messages.
	Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers may optionally employ the		Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
	"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the		"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
	appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding		appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
	allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned		allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
	fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure		fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure
	accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will		accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will
	restrict its use of optional padding to COMPOUND requests containing		restrict its use of OPTIONAL padding to COMPOUND requests containing
	only a single WRITE operation.		only a single WRITE operation.
	Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4		Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4
	COMPOUND is unbounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it		COMPOUND is unbounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it
	might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one		might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one
	described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues		described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues
	involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism		involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism
	unworkable. Instead, an extension to NFS version 4 supporting a more		unworkable.
	comprehensive exchange of upper layer (NFSv4) parameters is proposed
	in [NFSv4.1]. This proposal also addresses other use of the sizes,		However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic
	such as in the server's response cache.		requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in
			fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.
			Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the
			same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.
			There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to
			operate with prearranged sie constraints, for example use of the
			sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to
			NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer
			parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].
	6. Security		6. Security
	The RDMA transport for ONC RPC supports RPCSEC_GSS security as well		The RDMA transport for ONC RPC supports RPCSEC_GSS security as well
	as link-level security. The use of RDMA Write to return RPC results		as link-level security. The use of RDMA Write to return RPC results
	does not affect ONC RPC security.		does not affect ONC RPC security.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	NFS use of direct data placement may introduce a need for an		NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional
	additional NFS port number assignment for networks which share		NFS port number assignment for networks which share traditional UDP
	traditional UDP and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP		and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP [DDP] [RDMAP]
	[DDP] [RDMAP] protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).		protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).
	NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally		NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally
	listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they		listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they
	register these with the portmapper. NFS servers for version 4		register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.
	[RFC3050] are required to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not		However, NFS servers for version 4 [RFC3530] are required by that
	required to register.		specification to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not required to
			register.
	An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a		An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a
	network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper may choose an		network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an
	arbitrary port, or may be assigned an alternative well-known port		arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for
	number for its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port must be		its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port MAY be registered with
	registered with the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the		the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in
	requirement in [RPCRDMA].		[RPCRDMA].
	An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network must be
	assigned an alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA
	service by IANA. Clients will connect to this well-known port
	without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP).
	Any subsequent NFS version 4 minor version's [NFSv4.1] server may		An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network must
	reuse port 2049, by requiring the client to perform the RDMA session		MUST use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA
	negotiation supported by this protocol. If it does not require the		service by IANA. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port
	client to negotiate an RDMA-enabled session, it must use the		without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP). The
	alternative port for RPC/RDMA, as for version 4.		following port is assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA
			transport:
	This is not an issue on non-IP transports such as native Infiniband,		nfs-rdma 2050
	where a non-colliding port translation scheme is used [IBPORT]. On
	such interfaces, the server can simply listen on the port mapped from
	the IANA-assigned NFS 2049, or any other port as assigned by the
	native transport. Such assignments are out of the scope of IANA, and
	of this document.
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for		The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for
	their contributions to this document.		their contributions to this document.
	9. Normative References		9. Normative References
			[RFC2119]
			S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
			Levels",
			Best Current Practice,
			BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC1831]		[RFC1831]
	R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification		R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
	Version 2",		Version 2",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt
	[RFC1832]		[RFC1832]
	R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",		R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt
	skipping to change at page 8, line 35		skipping to change at page 9, line 4
	[RFC1832]		[RFC1832]
	R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",		R. Srinivasan, "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt
	[RFC1094]		[RFC1094]
	"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",		"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",
	(NFS version 2) Informational RFC,		(NFS version 2) Informational RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
	[RFC1813]		[RFC1813]
	B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol		B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol
	Specification",		Specification",
	Informational RFC,		Informational RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt
			[RFC1833]
			R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
			Standards Track RFC,
			http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt
	[RFC3530]		[RFC3530]
	S. Shepler, B. Callaghan, D. Robinson, R. Thurlow, C. Beame, M.		S. Shepler, B. Callaghan, D. Robinson, R. Thurlow, C. Beame, M.
	Eisler, D. Noveck, "NFS version 4 Protocol",		Eisler, D. Noveck, "NFS version 4 Protocol",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt
	10. Informative References		10. Informative References
	[RPCRDMA]		[RPCRDMA]
	T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC"		T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC"
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,		Internet Draft Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma		draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma
	[NFSv4.1]		[NFSv4.1]
	S. Shepler, ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"		S. Shepler et. al., ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,		Internet Draft Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1		draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1
	[DDP]		[DDP]
	H. Shah et al, "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",		H. Shah et al, "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,		Standards Track RFC,
	draft-ietf-rddp-ddp		draft-ietf-rddp-ddp
	[RDMAP]		[RDMAP]
	R. Recio et al, "An RDMA Protocol Specification",		R. Recio et al, "An RDMA Protocol Specification",
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,		Standards Track RFC,
	draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap		draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap
	[IBPORT]
	Infiniband Trade Association, "IP Addressing Annex",
	available from www.infinibandta.org
	11. Authors' Addresses		11. Authors' Addresses
	Tom Talpey		Tom Talpey
	Network Appliance, Inc.		Network Appliance, Inc.
	375 Totten Pond Road		375 Totten Pond Road
	Waltham, MA 02451 USA		Waltham, MA 02451 USA
	Phone: +1 781 768 5329		Phone: +1 781 768 5329
	EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com		EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com
	Brent Callaghan		Brent Callaghan
	Apple Computer, Inc.		Apple Computer, Inc.
End of changes. 46 change blocks.
	83 lines changed or deleted		98 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/