draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-05.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06.txt 
Network File System Version 4 C. Lever Network File System Version 4 C. Lever
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Updates: 8166 (if approved) November 8, 2019 Updates: 8166 (if approved) January 2, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 11, 2020 Expires: July 5, 2020
RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-05 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged
between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a
connection. The addition of the private data payload specified in connection. The addition of the private data payload specified in
this document is an optional extension that does not alter the RPC- this document is an optional extension that does not alter the RPC-
over-RDMA version 1 protocol. This document updates RFC 8166. over-RDMA version 1 protocol. This document updates RFC 8166.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertised Transport Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Advertised Transport Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Inline Threshold Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Inline Threshold Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Remote Invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Remote Invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Private Data Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Private Data Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Amongst RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 Implementations . . . 7 4.1.1. Interoperability with RPC-over-RDMA Version 1
4.1.2. Amongst Implementations of Other Upper-Layer Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. Interoperability Amongst RDMA Transports . . . . . . 7
5. Updating the Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Updating the Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Feature Support Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Feature Support Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Inline Threshold Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Inline Threshold Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166] enables The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166] enables
payload data transfer using Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) for payload data transfer using Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) for
upper-layer protocols based on Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) upper-layer protocols based on Remote Procedure Calls (RPC)
[RFC5531]. The terms "Remote Direct Memory Access" (RDMA) and [RFC5531]. The terms "Remote Direct Memory Access" (RDMA) and
"Direct Data Placement" (DDP) are introduced in [RFC5040]. "Direct Data Placement" (DDP) are introduced in [RFC5040].
skipping to change at page 3, line 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 33
To enable current RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations to To enable current RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations to
interoperate with implementations that support the private message interoperate with implementations that support the private message
format described in this document, implementation of the private data format described in this document, implementation of the private data
message is OPTIONAL. When the private data message has been message is OPTIONAL. When the private data message has been
successfully exchanged, peers may choose to perform extended RDMA successfully exchanged, peers may choose to perform extended RDMA
semantics. However, the private message format does not alter the semantics. However, the private message format does not alter the
XDR definition specified in [RFC8166]. XDR definition specified in [RFC8166].
The message format is intended to be further extensible within the The message format is intended to be further extensible within the
normal scope of such IETF work (see Section 5 for further details). normal scope of such IETF work (see Section 5 for further details).
Section 6 of the current document defines an IANA registry for this Section 7 of the current document defines an IANA registry for this
purpose. In addition, interoperation between implementations of RPC- purpose. In addition, interoperation between implementations of RPC-
over-RDMA version 1 that present this message format to peers and over-RDMA version 1 that present this message format to peers and
those that do not recognize this message format is guaranteed. those that do not recognize this message format is guaranteed.
2. Requirements Language 2. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
| Format Identifier | | Format Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | Flags | Send Size | Receive Size | | Version | Flags | Send Size | Receive Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Format Identifier: This field contains a fixed 32-bit value that Format Identifier: This field contains a fixed 32-bit value that
identifies the content of the Private Data field as an RPC-over- identifies the content of the Private Data field as an RPC-over-
RDMA version 1 CM Private Data message. In RPC-over-RDMA version RDMA version 1 CM Private Data message. In RPC-over-RDMA version
1 Private Data, the value of this field is always 0xf6ab0e18, in 1 Private Data, the value of this field is always 0xf6ab0e18, in
network byte order. The use of this field is further expanded network byte order. The use of this field is further expanded
upon in Section 4.1. upon in Section 4.1.2.
Version: This 8-bit field contains a message format version number. Version: This 8-bit field contains a message format version number.
The value "1" in this field indicates that exactly eight octets The value "1" in this field indicates that exactly eight octets
are present, that they appear in the order described in this are present, that they appear in the order described in this
section, and that each has the meaning defined in this section. section, and that each has the meaning defined in this section.
Further considerations about the use of this field are discussed Further considerations about the use of this field are discussed
in Section 5. in Section 5.
Flags: This 8-bit field contains bit flags that indicate the support Flags: This 8-bit field contains bit flags that indicate the support
status of optional features, such as remote invalidation. The status of optional features, such as remote invalidation. The
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
The extension described in this document is designed to allow RPC- The extension described in this document is designed to allow RPC-
over-RDMA version implementations that use CM Private Data to over-RDMA version implementations that use CM Private Data to
interoperate fully with RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations that interoperate fully with RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations that
do not exchange this information. Implementations that use this do not exchange this information. Implementations that use this
extension must also interoperate fully with RDMA implementations that extension must also interoperate fully with RDMA implementations that
use CM Private Data for other purposes. Realizing these goals use CM Private Data for other purposes. Realizing these goals
require that implementations of this extension follow the practices require that implementations of this extension follow the practices
described in the rest of this section. described in the rest of this section.
4.1.1. Amongst RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 Implementations 4.1.1. Interoperability with RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 Implementations
When a peer does not receive a CM Private Data message which conforms When a peer does not receive a CM Private Data message which conforms
to Section 4, it needs to act as if the remote peer supports only the to Section 4, it needs to act as if the remote peer supports only the
default RPC-over-RDMA version 1 settings, as defined in [RFC8166]. default RPC-over-RDMA version 1 settings, as defined in [RFC8166].
In other words, the peer MUST behave as if a Private Data message was In other words, the peer MUST behave as if a Private Data message was
received in which bit 15 of the Flags field is zero, and both Size received in which bit 15 of the Flags field is zero, and both Size
fields contain the value zero. fields contain the value zero.
4.1.2. Amongst Implementations of Other Upper-Layer Protocols 4.1.2. Interoperability Amongst RDMA Transports
The Format Identifier field in the message format defined in this The Format Identifier field defined in Section 4 is provided to
document is provided to enable implementations to distinguish RPC- enable implementations to distinguish RPC-over-RDMA version 1 Private
over-RDMA version 1 Private Data from application-specific private Data from private data inserted at other layers, such as the private
data inserted by applications other than RPC-over RDMA version 1. data inserted by the iWARP MPAv2 enhancement described in [RFC6581].
Examples of other applications that make use of CM Private Data
include iWARP, via the MPA enhancement described in [RFC6581], and
iSCSI extensions for RDMA (iSER), as defined in [RFC7145].
During connection establishment, an implementation of the extension As part of connection establishment, the received private data buffer
described in this document checks the Format Identifier field before is searched for the Format Identifier word. The offset of the Format
decoding subsequent fields. If the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Identifier is not restricted to any alignment. If the RPC-over-RDMA
Private Data Format Identifier is not present as the first 4 octets, version 1 CM Private Data Format Identifier is not present, an RPC-
an RPC-over-RDMA version 1 receiver MUST ignore the CM Private Data, over-RDMA version 1 receiver MUST behave as if no RPC-over-RDMA
behaving as if no RPC-over-RDMA version 1 Private Data has been version 1 CM Private Data has been provided.
provided (see above).
Once the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private Data Format Identifier is
found, the receiver parses the subsequent octets as RPC-over-RDMA
version 1 CM Private Data. As additional assurance that the private
data content is valid RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private Data, the
receiver should check that the format version number field contains a
valid and recognized version number, the size of the private data
does not overrun the length of the buffer, and all reserved flag bits
are zero.
5. Updating the Message Format 5. Updating the Message Format
Although the message format described in this document provides the Although the message format described in this document provides the
ability for the client and server to exchange particular information ability for the client and server to exchange particular information
about the local RPC-over-RDMA implementation, it is possible that about the local RPC-over-RDMA implementation, it is possible that
there will be a future need to exchange additional properties. This there will be a future need to exchange additional properties. This
would make it necessary to extend or otherwise modify the format would make it necessary to extend or otherwise modify the format
described in this document. described in this document.
skipping to change at page 8, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
existence of the new format. These include implementations that that existence of the new format. These include implementations that that
do not recognize the exchange of CM Private Data as well as those do not recognize the exchange of CM Private Data as well as those
that recognize only the format described in this document. that recognize only the format described in this document.
Given the message format described in this document, these Given the message format described in this document, these
interoperability constraints could be met by the following sorts of interoperability constraints could be met by the following sorts of
new message formats: new message formats:
o A format which uses a different value for the first four bytes of o A format which uses a different value for the first four bytes of
the format, as provided for in the registry described in the format, as provided for in the registry described in
Section 6. Section 7.
o A format which uses the same value for the Format Identifier field o A format which uses the same value for the Format Identifier field
and a value other than one (1) in the Version field. and a value other than one (1) in the Version field.
Although it is possible to reorganize the last three of the eight Although it is possible to reorganize the last three of the eight
bytes in the existing format, extended formats are unlikely to do so. bytes in the existing format, extended formats are unlikely to do so.
New formats would take the form of extensions of the format described New formats would take the form of extensions of the format described
in this document with added fields starting at byte eight of the in this document with added fields starting at byte eight of the
format and changes to the definition of previously reserved flags. format and changes to the definition of previously reserved flags.
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
Send Size and Receive Size fields. A sender computes the encoded Send Size and Receive Size fields. A sender computes the encoded
value by dividing the actual value by 1024 and subtracting one from value by dividing the actual value by 1024 and subtracting one from
the result. A receiver decodes this value by performing a the result. A receiver decodes this value by performing a
complementary set of operations. complementary set of operations.
The client uses the smaller of its own send size and the server's The client uses the smaller of its own send size and the server's
reported receive size as the client-to-server inline threshold. The reported receive size as the client-to-server inline threshold. The
server uses the smaller of its own send size and the clients's server uses the smaller of its own send size and the clients's
reported receive size as the server-to-client inline threshold. reported receive size as the server-to-client inline threshold.
6. IANA Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The Private Data extension specified in this document inherits the
security considerations of the protocols it extends, which in this
case is defined in [RFC8166].
The integrity of CM Private Data and the authenticity of it's source
is ensured by the use of the Reliable connected (RC) Queue Pair (QP)
type, required by RPC-over-RDMA version 1. Any attempts to interfere
with or hijack an RC connection will result in the connection being
immediately terminated. Additional relevant analysis of RDMA
security appears in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5042].
Improperly setting one of the fields in the private message payload
will result in a greatly increased risk of disconnection (i.e., self-
imposed Denial of Service). There is no increased risk of exposing
upper-layer data inappropriately.
7. IANA Considerations
In accordance with [RFC8126], the author requests that IANA create a In accordance with [RFC8126], the author requests that IANA create a
new registry in the "Remote Direct Data Placement" Protocol Category new registry in the "Remote Direct Data Placement" Protocol Category
Group. The new registry is to be called the "RDMA-CM Private Data Group. The new registry is to be called the "RDMA-CM Private Data
Identifier Registry". This is a registry of 32-bit numbers that Identifier Registry". This is a registry of 32-bit numbers that
identify the upper-layer protocol associated with data that appears identify the upper-layer protocol associated with data that appears
in the application-specific RDMA-CM Private Data area. The fields in in the application-specific RDMA-CM Private Data area. The fields in
this registry include: Format Identifier, Description, and Reference. this registry include: Format Identifier, Description, and Reference.
The initial contents of this registry are a single entry: The initial contents of this registry are a single entry:
skipping to change at page 9, line 24 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
+------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ +------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0xf6ab0e18 | RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private | [RFC-TBD] | | 0xf6ab0e18 | RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private | [RFC-TBD] |
| | Data | | | | Data | |
+------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ +------------------+------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: RDMA-CM Private Data Identifier Registry Table 1: RDMA-CM Private Data Identifier Registry
IANA is to assign subsequent new entries in this registry using the IANA is to assign subsequent new entries in this registry using the
Expert Review policy as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]. Expert Review policy as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126].
6.1. Guidance for Designated Experts 7.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
The Designated Expert (DE), appointed by the IESG, should ascertain The Designated Expert (DE), appointed by the IESG, should ascertain
the existence of suitable documentation that defines the semantics the existence of suitable documentation that defines the semantics
and format of the private data, and verify that the document is and format of the private data, and verify that the document is
permanently and publicly available. Documentation produced outside permanently and publicly available. Documentation produced outside
the IETF must not conflict with work that is active or already the IETF must not conflict with work that is active or already
published within the IETF. published within the IETF.
The new Reference field should contain a reference to that The new Reference field should contain a reference to that
documentation. The DE can assign new Format Identifiers at random as documentation. The DE can assign new Format Identifiers at random as
long as they do not conflict with existing entries in this registry. long as they do not conflict with existing entries in this registry.
The Description field should contain the name of a distinct upper- The Description field should contain the name of the RDMA consumer
layer RDMA consumer that will use the private data. that will generate and use the private data.
The DE will post the request to the nfsv4 WG mailing list (or a The DE will post the request to the nfsv4 WG mailing list (or a
successor to that list, if such a list exists), for comment and successor to that list, if such a list exists), for comment and
review. The DE will approve or deny the request and publish notice review. The DE will approve or deny the request and publish notice
of the decision within 30 days. of the decision within 30 days.
7. Security Considerations
The Private Data extension specified in this document inherits the
security considerations of the protocols it extends, which in this
case is defined in [RFC8166].
The integrity of CM Private Data and the authenticity of it's source
is ensured by the use of the Reliable connected (RC) Queue Pair (QP)
type, required by RPC-over-RDMA version 1. Any attempts to interfere
with or hijack an RC connection will result in the connection being
immediately terminated. Additional relevant analysis of RDMA
security appears in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5042].
Improperly setting one of the fields in the private message payload
will result in a greatly increased risk of disconnection (i.e., self-
imposed Denial of Service). There is no increased risk of exposing
upper-layer data inappropriately.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D. [RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
skipping to change at page 11, line 31 skipping to change at page 11, line 40
[RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access [RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666, Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>.
[RFC6581] Kanevsky, A., Ed., Bestler, C., Ed., Sharp, R., and S. [RFC6581] Kanevsky, A., Ed., Bestler, C., Ed., Sharp, R., and S.
Wise, "Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Wise, "Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)
Connection Establishment", RFC 6581, DOI 10.17487/RFC6581, Connection Establishment", RFC 6581, DOI 10.17487/RFC6581,
April 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6581>. April 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6581>.
[RFC7145] Ko, M. and A. Nezhinsky, "Internet Small Computer System
Interface (iSCSI) Extensions for the Remote Direct Memory
Access (RDMA) Specification", RFC 7145,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7145, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7145>.
[RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System [RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
(NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530, (NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,
March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>. March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.
[RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) [RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861, Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>. November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Thanks to Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this Thanks to Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this
approach, and to Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for their expert comments approach, and to Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for their expert comments
and review. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg and review. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg
Marsden for their support of this work. Marsden for their support of this work. Also, thanks to expert
reviewers Sean Hefty and Dave Minturn.
Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Magnus Westerlund, NFSV4 Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Magnus Westerlund, NFSV4
Working Group Chairs Spencer Shepler and Brian Pawlowski, and NFSV4 Working Group Chairs David Noveck, Spencer Shepler, and Brian
Pawlowski, NFSV4 Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler, and NFSV4
Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes. Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes.
Author's Address Author's Address
Charles Lever Charles Lever
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
United States of America United States of America
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
61 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/