draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-05.txt		draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt
	NFSv4 Working Group Tom Talpey		NFSv4 Working Group Tom Talpey
	Internet-Draft Network Appliance, Inc.		Internet-Draft Network Appliance, Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track Brent Callaghan		Intended status: Standards Track Brent Callaghan
	Expires: November 8, 2007 Apple Computer, Inc.		Expires: January 1, 2008 Apple Computer, Inc.
	May 7, 2007		July 1, 2007
	NFS Direct Data Placement		NFS Direct Data Placement
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-05		draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06
	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.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 2, line 16		skipping to change at page 2, line 16
	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 . . . . . . . . . . 3		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . 10		12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 9
	Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		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] [RFC4506] [RFC1094] [RFC1813]		version of the NFS protocol [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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 10		skipping to change at page 4, line 9
	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 maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS		buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS
	client and server implementations agree by specifying 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.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 7		skipping to change at page 6, line 6
	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 MUST 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 MUST 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 fits within its receive buffers, lest an RDMA		READLINK requests fits within its receive buffers, lest an RDMA
	transport error result upon transfer.		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.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 31		skipping to change at page 7, line 29
	involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism		involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism
	unworkable.		unworkable.
	However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic		However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic
	requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in		requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in
	fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.		fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.
	Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the		Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the
	same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.		same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.
	There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to		There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to
	operate with prearranged sie constraints, for example use of the		operate with prearranged size constraints, for example use of the
	sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to		sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to
	NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer		NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer
	parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].		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.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 14		skipping to change at page 8, line 13
	specification to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not required to		specification to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not required to
	register.		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 use the alternative well-known port number for		arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for
	its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port MAY be registered with		its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port MAY be registered with
	the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in		the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in
	[RPCRDMA].		[RPCRDMA].
	An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network must		An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network MUST
	MUST use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA		use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA service
	service by IANA. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port		by IANA. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without
	without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP). The		consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP). The port number
	following port is assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA		assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA transport is available
	transport:		from the IANA port registry [RFC3232].
	nfs-rdma 2050
	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]		[RFC2119]
	S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	Levels",		Levels",
	Best Current Practice,		Best Current Practice,
	BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC1831]
	R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
	Version 2",
	Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt
	[RFC4506]
	M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
	Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4506.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]		[RFC1833]
	R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",		R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt
	skipping to change at page 9, line 23		skipping to change at page 9, line 9
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt		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
			[RFC3232]
			Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
			Port Registry database,
			http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3232.txt
			http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
	[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 et. al., 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",
	Standards Track RFC,		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",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap		draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap
	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
End of changes. 15 change blocks.
	32 lines changed or deleted		25 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/