NFSv4 D. Noveck, Ed. Internet-Draft EMC Intended status: Informational P. Shivam Expires: February 25, 2012 C. Lever B. Baker ORACLE August 28, 2011 NFSv4.0 migration: Implementation experience and spec issues to resolve draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-migration-issues-00 Abstract The migration feature of NFSv4 provides for moving responsibility for a single fs from one server to another, without disruption to clients. Recent implementation experience has shown problems in the existing specification for this feature. This document discusses the issues which have arisen and explores the options available for curing the issues via clarification and correction of the NFSv4.0 specification. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2012. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Implementation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Failure to free migrated state on client reboot . . . 4 3.1.2. Server reboots resulting in a confused lease situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.3. Client complexity issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Sources of Protocol difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Issues with nfs_client_id4 generation and use . . . . 6 3.2.2. Issues with lease proliferation . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Issues to be resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Possible changes to nfs_client_id4 string . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Possible changes to handle differing nfs_client_id4 string values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Other issues within migration-state sections . . . . . . . 10 4.4. Issues within other sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Proposed resolution of protocol difficulties . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Proposed changes: nfs_client_id4 id string . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Proposed changes: merged (vs. synchronized) leases . . . . 11 5.3. Other proposed changes to migration-state sections . . . . 13 5.3.1. Proposed changes: Client ID migration . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.2. Proposed changes: Callback re-establishment . . . . . 14 5.3.3. Proposed changes: LEASE_MOVED rework . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. Proposed changes to other sections . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.5. Migration, Replication and State [AS PROPOSED] . . . . . . 16 5.5.1. Migration and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5.2. Migration and Lease Merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5.3. Replication and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.5.4. Notification of Migrated Lease . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.5.5. Migration and the Lease_time Attribute . . . . . . . . 21 6. Results of proposed changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1. Results: Failure to free migrated state on client reboot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2. Results: Server reboots resulting in confused lease situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3. Results: Client complexity issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.4. Result summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 1. Introduction This document is in the informational category, and while the facts it reports may have normative implications, any such normative significance reflects the readers' preferences. For example, we may report that the reboot of a client with migrated state results in state not being promptly cleared and that this will prevent granting of conflicting lock requests at least for the lease time, which is a fact. While it is to be expected that client and server implementers will judge this to be a situation that is best avoided, the judgment of how pressing this issue is a judgment for the reader, and eventually the nfsv4 working group to make. We do explore possible ways in which such issues can be avoided, with minimal negative effects, in the expectation that the working group will choose to address these issues, but the choice of exactly how to address this is best given effect in a working group document. 2. Conventions 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]. In the context of this informational document, these normative keywords will always occur in the context of a quotation, most often direct but sometime indirect. The context will make it clear whether the quotation is from: o The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol, whether that is the original NFSv4.0 specification [RFC3530], the current pending draft of RFC3530bis expected to become the definitive definition of NFSv.0 once certain procedural steps are taken [cur-v4.0-bis], or an eventual RFC3530bis RFC, taking over the role of definitive definition of NFSv4.0 from RFC3530. As the identity of that document may change during the lifetime of this document, we will often refer to the current or pending definition of NFSv4.0 and quote from portions of the documents that are identical among all existing drafts. Given that RFC3530 and all RFC3530bis drafts agree as to the issues under discussion, this should not cause undue difficulty. Note that to simplify document maintenance, section names rather than section numbers are used so that only minimal changes will be necessary as the identity of the document defining NFSv4.0 changes. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o A proposed or possible text to serve as a replacement for the current definitive document text. Often, a number of possible alternative texts may be listed and benefits and detriments of each examined in turn. 3. Implementation Experience 3.1. Implementation issues Note that the examples below reflect current experience which arises from clients implementing the recommendation to use different nfs_client_id4 id strings for different server addresses. This is simply because that is the experience implementers have had. The reader should not assume that in all cases, this practice is the source of the difficulty. It may be so in some cases but clearly it is not in all cases. 3.1.1. Failure to free migrated state on client reboot The following sort of situation has proved troublesome: o A client C establishes a clientid4 C1 with server ABC specifying an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C-ABC" and verifier 0x111. o The client begins to access files in file system F on server ABC, resulting in generating stateids S1, S2, etc. under the lease for clientid C1. It may also access files on other file systems on the same server. o The file system is migrated from ABC to server XYZ. When transparent state migration is in effect, stateids S1 and S2 and clientid4 C1 are now available for use by client C at server XYZ. So far, so good. o Client C reboots and attempts to access data on server XYZ, whether in filesystem F or another. It does a SETCLIENID with an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C-XYZ" and verifier 0x112. There is thus no occasion to free stateids s1 and s2 since they are associated with a different client name and so lease expiration is the only way that they can be gotten rid of. Note here that while it seems clear to us in this example that C-XYZ and C-ABC are from the same client, the server has no way to determine the structure of the "opaque" id. In the protocol, it really is opaque. Only the client knows which nfs_client_id4 values designate the same client on a different server. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 3.1.2. Server reboots resulting in a confused lease situation Further problems arise from scenarios like the following. o Client C talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.i established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.1} o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state. Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i} o Server ABC reboots. o Client C talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.j established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j} o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j} o Now XYZ has two leases that match {v1, "C_ABC", *}, when the protocol clearly assumes there can be only one. Note that if the client used "C" (rather than "C-ABC") as the nfs_client_id4 id string, the exact same situation would arise. One of the first cases in which this sort of situation has resulted in difficulties is in connection with doing a setclientid for callback update. The SETCLIENTID for callback update only includes the nfs_client_id4, assuming there can only be one such with a given nfs-client-id4 value. If there are multiple, confirmed client records with identical nfs_client_id4 values, there is no way to map the callback update request to the correct client record. One possible accommodation to this particular issue that has been used is to add a RENEW operation along with SETCLIENTID (on a callback update) to disambiguate the client. When the client updates the callback info to the destination, the client would, by convention, send a compound like this: { RENEW clientid4, SETCLIENTID nfs_client_id4,verf,cb } The presence of the clientid4 in the compound would allow the server to differentiate between the various nfs_client_id4 values it has in the table. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 While this would be a reasonable patch for an isolated protocol weakness, interoperable clients and servers would require that the protocol truly be updated to allow such a situation, specifically that of multiple clientid4's with the same nfs_client_id4 value. The protocol is currently designed and implemented assuming this can't happen and we need to either prevent the situation from happening, or fully adapt to the possibilities which can arise. See Section 4 for a discussion of such issues. 3.1.3. Client complexity issues Consider the following situation: o There are a set of clients C1 through Cn accessing servers S1 through Sm. Each server manages some significant number of file systems with the file system count L being significantly greater than m. o Each client Cx will access a subset of the servers and so will have up to m clientid's, which we will call Cxy for server Sy. o Now assume that for load-balancing or other operational reasons, numbers of file systems are migrated among the servers. As a result, each client-server pair will have up to m clientid's and each client will have up to m**2 clientids. If we add the possibility of server reboot, the only bound on a client's clientid count is L. Now, instead of a clientid identifying a client-server pair, we have many more entities for the client to deal with. In addition, it isn't clear how new state is to be incorporated in this structure. The limitations of the migrated state (inability to be freed on reboot) would argue against adding more such state but trying to avoid that would run into its own difficulties. For example, a single lockowner string presented under two different clientids would appear as two different entities. 3.2. Sources of Protocol difficulties 3.2.1. Issues with nfs_client_id4 generation and use The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Client ID" says: The second field, id is a variable length string that uniquely defines the client. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 There are two possible interpretations of the phrase. "uniquely defines" in the above: o The relation between strings and clients is a function from such strings to clients so that each string designates a single client. o The relation between strings and clients is a bijection between such strings and clients so that each string designates a single client and each client is named by a single string. The first interpretation would make the strings like phone numbers (a single person can have several) while the second would make them like social security numbers. Endless debate about the true meaning of "uniquely defines" in this context is quite possible but not very helpful. The following points should be noted though: o The second interpretation is more consistent with the way "uniquely defines" is used elsewhere in the spec. o The spec as now written intends the second interpretation (or is internally inconsistent). In fact, it recommends, although it doesn't "RECOMMEND" that a single client have at least as many id strings as server addresses that it interacts with. It says, in the third bullet point regarding construction of the id (which we shall henceforth refer to as client-id-BP3): The string should be different for each server network address that the client accesses, rather than common to all server network addresses. o If internode interactions are limited to those between a client and its servers, there is no occasion for servers to be concerned with the question of whether two id strings designate the same client, so that there is no occasion for the difference in interpretation to matter. o When transparent migration of client state occurs between two servers, it becomes important to determine when state on two different servers is for the same client or not, and this distinction becomes very important. Given the need for the server to be aware of client identity with regard to migrated state, either nfs4_client_id4 id construction rules will have to change or there will be need to get around current issues, or perhaps a combination of these two will be required. Later sections will examine the options and propose a solution. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 One consideration that may indicate that this cannot remain exactly as it is today. has to do with the fact that the current explanation for this behavior is not correct. The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Client ID" says: The reason is that it may not be possible for the client to tell if the same server is listening on multiple network addresses. If the client issues SETCLIENTID with the same id string to each network address of such a server, the server will think it is the same client, and each successive SETCLIENTID will cause the server to begin the process of removing the client's previous leased state. In point of fact, a "SETCLIENTID with the same id string" sent to multiple network addresses will be treated as all from the same client but will not "cause the server to begin the process of removing the client's previous leased state" unless the server believes it is a newer instance of the same client, i.e. if the id is the same and there is a different verifier. If the client does not reboot, the verifier should not change. If it does reboot, the verifier will change, and the server should "begin the process of removing the client's previous leased state. The situation of multiple SETCLIENTID requests received by a server on multiple network addresses, is exactly the same, from the protocol design point of view, as when multiple (i.e. duplicate) SETCLIENTID requests received by the server on a single network address. The same protocol mechanisms that prevent erroneous state deletion in the latter case prevent it in the former case. There is no reason for special handling of the multiple-network-appearance case. 3.2.2. Issues with lease proliferation It is often felt that this is a consequence of the nfs_client_id4 id construction issues, and it is certainly the case that the two are closely connected in that non-uniform ids make it impossible for the server to appropriately combine leases from the same client. However, even where the server could combine leases from the same client, it needs to be clear how and when it will do so, so that the client will be prepared. These issues will have to be addressed at various places in the spec. This could be enough only if we are prepared to do away with the "should" recommending non-uniform ids and replace it with a "should not" or even a "SHOULD NOT". Current client implementation patterns Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 make this an unpalatable option. Alternatively, a way needs to be found for the server to infer from client behavior which leases are held by the same client and use this information to do appropriate lease mergers. 4. Issues to be resolved 4.1. Possible changes to nfs_client_id4 string The fact that the reason given in client-id-BP3 is not valid makes the existing "should" insupportable. We can't either o Keep a reason we know is invalid. o Keep saying "should" without giving a reason. So unless someone has a valid new reason, the "should" will have to go. The question is what to replace it with. o We can't say "MUST NOT", despite the problems this raises for migration since this is pretty late in the day for such change. Many currently operating clients obey the existing "should". Similar considerations would apply for "SHOULD NOT" or "should not". o Dropping client-id-BP3 entirely is a possibility but, given the context and history, it would just be a confusing version of "SHOULD NOT". o Using "MAY" would clearly specify that both ways of doing this are valid choices for clients and that servers will have to deal with clients that make either choice. o There will have to be some text explaining why a client might make either choice but we will have to make sure that it is truly descriptive, and not slanted in either direction. 4.2. Possible changes to handle differing nfs_client_id4 string values Given the difficulties caused by having different nfs_client_id4 id values for the same client, we have two choices: o Deprecate the existing treatment and basically say the client is on its own doing migration, if it follows it. o Introduce a way of having the client provide client identity information to the server, if it can be done compatibly while Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 staying within the bounds of v4.0. 4.3. Other issues within migration-state sections There are a number of issues where the existing text is unclear and/or wrong and needs to be fixed in some way. o Lack of clarity in the discussion of moving clientids (as well as stateids) as part of moving state for migration. o The discussion of synchronized leases is wrong in that there is no way to determine (in the current spec) when leases are for the same client and also wrong in suggesting a benefit from leases synchronized at the point of transfer. What is needed is merger of leases, which is necessary to keep client complexity requirements from getting out of hand. o Lack of clarity in the discussion of LEASE_MOVED handling. 4.4. Issues within other sections Some people are under the impression that updating callback endpoint information for an existing client, which is part of the client's handling of migration, may cause the destination server to free existing state. There needs to be additions to clarify the situation. 5. Proposed resolution of protocol difficulties 5.1. Proposed changes: nfs_client_id4 id string We propose replacing client-id-BP3 with the following The string MAY be different for each server network address that the client accesses, rather than common to all server network addresses. Making the nfs4_client_id4 id string different on different servers means that a server has no way of tying together information from the same client and so will treat a single client as multiple clients with multiple leases for each server network address. Since there is no way in the protocol for the client to determine if two network addresses are connected to the same server, the resulting lack of knowledge is symmetrical and can result in simpler client implementations in which there is a single clientid/lease per server network addresses. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 When the id string is kept uniform, the server has the basis to have a single clientid/lease for each distinct client. This has advantages in state management so that, for example, we never have a delegation under one clientid revoked because of a reference to the same file from the same client under a different clientid. The difficulty that this may pose for client implementations is that the mapping between server network addresses and leases is more complicated in that it is no longer a one-to-one mapping. Also, since clientid4's are not globally unique, the client cannot simply assume that two identical clientid4 values denote the same lease, but will have to verify this or treat any such lease identity relation as provisional and be prepared to find out that it is merely a case of accidental clientid4 equality. Support for migration, particularly with transparent state migration is more complex in the case of non-uniform id strings. For example, migration of a lease can result in multiple leases for the same client accessing the same server addresses, vitiating many of the advantages of this approach. Therefore, client implementations using the non-uniform id model that support migration with transparent state migration SHOULD use the facilities described in the section entitled "Migration and Lease Merger" in order to maintain the property that for a single client there is simple one-to-one map to get from server network address to the corresponding lease. 5.2. Proposed changes: merged (vs. synchronized) leases The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and State" says: As part of the transfer of information between servers, leases would be transferred as well. The leases being transferred to the new server will typically have a different expiration time from those for the same client, previously on the old server. To maintain the property that all leases on a given server for a given client expire at the same time, the server should advance the expiration time to the later of the leases being transferred or the leases already present. This allows the client to maintain lease renewal of both classes without special effort: There are a number of problems with this and any resolution of our difficulties must address them somehow. o The current v4.0 spec recommends that the client make it essentially impossible to determine when two leases are from "the same client". Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o It is not appropriate to speak of "maintain[ing] the property that all leases on a given server for a given client expire at the same time", since this is not a property that holds even in the absence of migration. A server listening on multiple network addresses may have the same client appear as multiple clients with no way to recognize the client as the same. o Even if the client identity issue could be resolved, advancing the lease time at the point of migration would not maintain the desired synchronization property. The leases would be synchronized until one of them was renewed, after which they would be unsynchronized again. To avoid client complexity, we need to have no more than one lease between a single client and a single server. this requires merger of leases since there is no real help from synchronizing them at a single instant. We have to have support for both styles of nfs_client_id4 id string assignment: uniform and non-uniform. o For the uniform model, the destination server can simply merge leases as part of state transfer, since two leases with the same nfs_client_id4 string must be for the same client. o For the non-uniform model, only the client knows when two of its id strings are for the same client. Therefore, the client has to participate in the process. See Section 5.5.2 for a description of how it might do that. We have made the following decisions as far as proposed normativity for state merger. They reflect the fact that we want to support migration for both id models and that we can't say MUST since we have older clients and servers to deal with. o Clients MAY use either id model and still get good migration support. o Servers SHOULD provide automatic lease merger during state migration so that clients using the uniform id model get the support automatically. o Clients using the non-uniform model and supporting migration SHOULD tell the destination server which leases to merge. o Servers supporting state migration SHOULD support lease merger under client direction. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 Since clients and servers will be a mixture of old and new and because nothing is a MUST we have to ensure that no combination will show worse behavior than is exhibited by current (i.e. old) clients and servers. 5.3. Other proposed changes to migration-state sections 5.3.1. Proposed changes: Client ID migration The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and State" says: In the case of migration, the servers involved in the migration of a filesystem SHOULD transfer all server state from the original to the new server. This must be done in a way that is transparent to the client. This state transfer will ease the client's transition when a filesystem migration occurs. If the servers are successful in transferring all state, the client will continue to use stateids assigned by the original server. Therefore the new server must recognize these stateids as valid. This holds true for the client ID as well. Since responsibility for an entire filesystem is transferred with a migration event, there is no possibility that conflicts will arise on the new server as a result of the transfer of locks. This poses some difficulties, mostly because the part about "client ID" is not clear: o It isn't clear what part of the paragraph, the "this" in the statement "this holds true ..." is meant to signify. o The phrase "the client ID" is ambiguous, possibly indicating the clientid4 and possibly indicating the nfs_client_id4. o If the text means to suggest that the same clientid4 must be used, the logic is not clear since the issue is not the same as for stateids of which there might be many. Adapting to the change of a single clientid, as might happen as a part of lease migration, is relatively easy for the client. We have decided to address this issue as follows, with the relevant changes all reflected in Section 5.5. o Make it clear that both clientid4 and nfs_client_id4 are to be transferred. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o Indicate that the initial transfer will result in the same clientid4 after transfer but this is not guaranteed since there may conflict with an existing clientid4 on the destination server and because lease merger can result in a change of the clientid4. 5.3.2. Proposed changes: Callback re-establishment The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and State" says: A client SHOULD re-establish new callback information with the new server as soon as possible, according to sequences described in sections "Operation 35: SETCLIENTID - Negotiate Client ID" and "Operation 36: SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM - Confirm Client ID". This ensures that server operations are not blocked by the inability to recall delegations. The above will need to be fixed to reflect the possibility of merging of leases and the text to do this appears as part of Section 5.5. 5.3.3. Proposed changes: LEASE_MOVED rework The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Notification of Migrated Lease" says: Upon receiving the NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED error, a client that supports filesystem migration MUST probe all filesystems from that server on which it holds open state. Once the client has successfully probed all those filesystems which are migrated, the server MUST resume normal handling of stateful requests from that client. There is a lack of clarity that is prompted by ambiguity about what exactly probing is and what the interlock between client and server must be. This has led to some worry about the scalability of the probing process, and although the time required does scale linearly with the number of fs's that the client may have state for with respect to a given server, the actual process can be done efficiently. To address these issues we propose replacing the above with the following paragraphs, as is reflected in Section 5.5. Upon receiving the NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED error, a client that supports filesystem migration MUST perform the necessary GETATTR operation for each of the file systems containing state that have Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 been migrated and so give the server evidence that it is aware of the migration of the filesystem. Once the client has done this for all migrated filesystems on which the client holds state, the server MUST resume normal handling of stateful requests from that client. One way in which clients can do this efficiently in the presence of large numbers of filesystems is as described below. This approach divides the process into two phases: one devoted to finding the migrated filesystems and the second devoted to doing the necessary GETATTRs. The client can find the migrated filesystems by building and issuing one or more COMPOUND requests, each consisting of a set of PUTFH/GETFH pairs, each pair using an fh in one of the filesystems in question. All such COMPOUND requests can be done in parallel. The successful completion of such a request indicates that none of the fs's interrogated have been migrated while termination with NFS4ERR_MOVED indicates that the filesystem getting the error has migrated while those interrogated before it in the same COMPOUND have not. Those whose interrogation follows the error remain in an uncertain state and can be interrogated by restarting the requests from after the point at which NFS4ERR_MOVED was returned or by issuing a new set of COMPOUND requests for the filesystems which remain in an uncertain state. Once the migrated filesystems have been found, all that is needed is for client to give evidence to the server that it is aware of the migrated status of filesystems found by this process, by interrogating the fs_locations attribute for an fh in each of the migrated filesystems. The client can do this building and issuing one or more COMPOUND requests, each of which consists of a set of PUTFH operations, each followed by a GETATTR of the fs_locations attribute. A RENEW follows to help tie the operations to the lease returning LEASE_MOVED. Once the client has done this for all migrated filesystems on which the client holds state, the server will resume normal handling of stateful requests from that client. 5.4. Proposed changes to other sections Some changes are necessary to reduce confusion about the process of callback information update and in particular to make it clear that no state is freed as a result: o Make it clear that after migration there are confirmed entries for transferred clientid4/nfs_client_id4 pairs. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o Be explicit in the sections headed "otherwise," in the descriptions of SETCLIENTID and SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM, that these don't apply in the cases we are concerned about. 5.5. Migration, Replication and State [AS PROPOSED] When responsibility for handling a given file system is transferred to a new server (migration) or the client chooses to use an alternate server (e.g., in response to server unresponsiveness) in the context of file system replication, the appropriate handling of state shared between the client and server (i.e., locks, leases, stateids, and client IDs) is as described below. The handling differs between migration and replication. For related discussion of file server state and the recovery of such state see the sections under "Crash Recovery". If a server replica or a server immigrating a filesystem agrees to, or is expected to, accept opaque values from the client that originated from another server, then it is a wise implementation practice for the servers to encode the "opaque" values in network byte order. when doing so, servers acting as replicas or immigrating filesystems will be able to parse values like stateids, directory cookies, filehandles, etc. even if their native byte order is different from that of other servers cooperating in the replication and migration of the filesystem. 5.5.1. Migration and State In the case of migration, the servers involved in the migration of a filesystem SHOULD transfer all server state from the original to the new server. This must be done in a way that is transparent to the client. This state transfer will ease the client's transition when a filesystem migration occurs. If the servers are successful in transferring all state, the client will continue to use stateids assigned by the original server. Therefore the new server must recognize these stateids as valid. If transferring stateids from server to server would result in a conflict for an existing stateid for the destination server with the existing client, transparent state migration MUST NOT happen for that client. Servers participating in using transparent state migration should co-ordinate their stateid assignment policies to make this situation unlikely or impossible. The means by which this might be done, like all of the inter-server interactions for migration, are not specified by the NFS version 4.0 protocol. Handling of clientid values is similar but not identical. The clientid4 and nfs_client_id4 information (id and verifier) will be Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 transferred with the rest of the state information and the destination server should use that information to determine appropriate clientid4 handling. Although the destination server may make state stored under an existing lease available under the clientid4 used on the source server, the client should not assume that this is always so. In particular, o If there is an existing lease with an nfs_client_id4 that matches a migrated lease (same id and verifier), the server SHOULD merge the two, making the union of the sets of stateids available under the clientid4 for the existing lease. As part of the lease merger, the expiration time of the lease will reflect renewal done within either of the ancestor leases (and so will reflect the latest of the renewals). o If there is an existing lease with an nfs_client_id4 that partially matches a migrated lease (same id and a different verifier), the server MUST eliminate one of the two, possibly invalidating one of the ancestor clientid4's. Since verifiers are not ordered, the later lease renewal time will prevail. When leases are not merged, the transfer of state should result in creation of a confirmed client record with empty callback information but matching the {v, x, c} for the transferred client information. This should enable establishment of new callback information using SETCLIENTID and SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM. A client may determine the disposition of migrated state by using a stateid associated with the migrated state and in an operation on the new server and using the associated clientid4 in a RENEW on the new server. o If the stateid is not valid and an error NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID is received, either transparent state migration has not occurred or the state was purged due to verifier mismatch o If the stateid is valid and an error NFS4ERR_BAD_CLIENTID is received on the RENEW, transparent state migration has occurred and the lease has been merged with an existing lease on the destination server. o If the stateid is valid and the clientid4 is valid, the lease has been transferred intact. Since responsibility for an entire filesystem is transferred with a migration event, there is no possibility that conflicts will arise on the new server as a result of the transfer of locks. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 The servers may choose not to transfer the state information upon migration. However, this choice is discouraged, except where specific issues such as stateid conflicts make it necessary. In the case of migration without state transfer, when the client presents state information from the original server (e.g. in a RENEW op or a READ op of zero length), the client must be prepared to receive either NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID or NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID from the new server. The client should then recover its state information as it normally would in response to a server failure. The new server must take care to allow for the recovery of state information as it would in the event of server restart. When a lease is transferred to a new server (as opposed to being merged with a lease already on the new server), a client SHOULD re- establish new callback information with the new server as soon as possible, according to sequences described in sections "Operation 35: SETCLIENTID - Negotiate Client ID" and "Operation 36: SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM - Confirm Client ID". This ensures that server operations are not blocked by the inability to recall delegations. 5.5.2. Migration and Lease Merger The server SHOULD merge state for the same server, that has come to be registered under different clientids because of migration, if the client clearly indicates its awareness of the identity of the clientids sharing the server state. This will simplify the client's state management task sine there will only be a single clientid4 and a single lease for every client-server pair. If a client references a stateid designating migrated state in the same COMPOUND and following a RENEW specifying a clientid4 gotten from the server other than by migration (by doing SETCLIENID followed by SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM), the server MAY merge state already under the lease of which that stateid is a part together with that referred to by the standard clientid, and then remove the existing migrated clientid. Since this is not mandatory behavior, the client needs a way of determining whether it has happened. If a client sees that state has migrated, and there is an existing clientid4 for the destination, it may do a COMPOUND consisting of o PUTFH of an open file (or the target of a delegation) for the migrated fs o RENEW of the existing clientid4 Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o READ (zero-length OK) specifying a migrated stateid, such as open or delegation stateid o RENEW of the migrated clientid4 This compound will renew the lease promptly as is required, determine whether state has been transferred and merge state under a single clientid, if the server supports this. If there is no transparent transfer of migrated state, the READ will fail with NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID. If the READ succeeds and the following RENEW succeeds than the merger has not occurred while if the RENEW fails with NFS4ERR_BAD_CLIENTID, the client knows that the server has done the merger. In the case in which the client does not yet have a clientid on the destination server, it should try to renew its lease and in the process see if transparent state migration has occurred. In the case in which transparent state migration has occurred, the client can then do the COMPOUND above to merge the multiple per-clientid state corpora. In the case in which the client uses the non-uniform id model, the result will be a clientid4 for the merged lease whose associated nfs_client_id4 reflects the destination server. This is important so that when the verifier for the nfs_clientid4 changes, due a client reboot, the associated state will be promptly freed. 5.5.3. Replication and State Since client switch-over in the case of replication is not under server control, the handling of state is different. In this case, leases, stateids and client IDs do not have validity across a transition from one server to another. The client must re-establish its locks on the new server. This can be compared to the re- establishment of locks by means of reclaim-type requests after a server reboot. The difference is that the server has no provision to distinguish requests reclaiming locks from those obtaining new locks or to defer the latter. Thus, a client re-establishing a lock on the new server (by means of a LOCK or OPEN request), may have the requests denied due to a conflicting lock. Since replication is intended for read-only use of filesystems, such denial of locks should not pose large difficulties in practice. When an attempt to re-establish a lock on a new server is denied, the client should treat the situation as if its original lock had been revoked. 5.5.4. Notification of Migrated Lease In the case of lease renewal, the client may not be submitting requests for a filesystem that has been migrated to another server. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 This can occur because of the implicit lease renewal mechanism. The client renews a lease containing state of multiple filesystems when submitting a request to any one filesystem at the server. In order for the client to schedule renewal of leases that may have been relocated to the new server, the client must find out about lease relocation before those leases expire. To accomplish this, all operations which implicitly renew leases for a client (such as OPEN, CLOSE, READ, WRITE, RENEW, LOCK, and others), will return the error NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED if responsibility for any of the leases to be renewed has been transferred to a new server. Note that when the transfer of responsibility leaves remaining state for that lease on the source server, the lease is renewed as normal despite returning the error. The transfer of responsibility happens when the server receives a GETATTR(fs_locations) from the client for each filesystem for which a lease has been moved to a new server. Normally it does this after receiving an NFS4ERR_MOVED for an access to the filesystem but the server is not required to verify that this happens in order to terminate the return of NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED. By convention, the compounds containing GETATTR(fs_locations) SHOULD include an appended RENEW operation to permit the server to identify the client getting the information. Note that the LEASE_MOVED error is only required when responsibility for at least one stateid has been transferred. In the case of a null lease, where the only associated state is a clientid, no LEASE_MOVED error need be generated. Upon receiving the NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED error, a client that supports filesystem migration MUST perform the necessary GETATTR operation for each of the file systems containing state that have been migrated and so give the server evidence that it is aware of the migration of the filesystem. Once the client has done this for all migrated filesystems on which the client holds state, the server MUST resume normal handling of stateful requests from that client. One way in which clients can do this efficiently in the presence of large numbers of filesystems is described below. This approach divides the process into two phases, one devoted to finding the migrated filesystems and the second devoted to doing the necessary GETATTRs. The client can find the migrated filesystems by building and issuing one or more COMPOUND requests, each consisting of a set of PUTFH/ GETFH pairs, each pair using an fh in one of the filesystems in question. All such COMPOUND requests can be done in parallel. The successful completion of such a request indicates that none of the fs's interrogated have been migrated while termination with Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 NFS4ERR_MOVED indicates that the filesystem getting the error has migrated while those interrogated before it in the same COMPOUND have not. Those whose interrogation follows the error remain in an uncertain state and can be interrogated by restarting the requests from after the point at which NFS4ERR_MOVED was returned or by issuing a new set of COMPOUND requests for the filesystems which remain in an uncertain state. Once the migrated filesystems have been found, all that is needed is for client to give evidence to the server that it is aware of the migrated status of filesystems found by this process, by interrogating the fs_locations attribute for an fh each of the migrated filesystems. The client can do this building and issuing one or more COMPOUND requests, each of which consists of a set of PUTFH operations, each followed by a GETATTR of the fs_locations attribute. A RENEW follows to help tie the operations to the lease returning LEASE_MOVED. Once the client has done this for all migrated filesystems on which the client holds state, the server will resume normal handling of stateful requests from that client. In order to support legacy clients that do not handle the NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED error correctly, the server SHOULD time out after a wait of at least two lease periods, at which time it will resume normal handling of stateful requests from all clients. If a client attempts to access the migrated files, the server MUST reply NFS4ERR_MOVED. When the client receives an NFS4ERR_MOVED error, the client can follow the normal process to obtain the new server information (through the fs_locations attribute) and perform renewal of those leases on the new server. If the server has not had state transferred to it transparently, the client will receive either NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID or NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID from the new server, as described above. The client can then recover state information as it does in the event of server failure. 5.5.5. Migration and the Lease_time Attribute In order that the client may appropriately manage its leases in the case of migration, the destination server must establish proper values for the lease_time attribute. When state is transferred transparently, that state should include the correct value of the lease_time attribute. The lease_time attribute on the destination server must never be less than that on the source since this would result in premature expiration of leases granted by the source server. Upon migration in which state is transferred transparently, the client is under no obligation to re- Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 fetch the lease_time attribute and may continue to use the value previously fetched (on the source server). In the case in which lease merger occurs as part of state transfer, the lease_time attribute of the destination lease remain in effect. the client can simply renew that lease with its existing lease_time attribute. State in the source lease is renewed at the time of transfer so that it cannot expire, as long as the destination lease is appropriately renewed. If state has not been transferred transparently (i.e., the client sees a real or simulated server reboot), the client should fetch the value of lease_time on the new (i.e., destination) server, and use it for subsequent locking requests. However the server must respect a grace period at least as long as the lease_time on the source server, in order to ensure that clients have ample time to reclaim their locks before potentially conflicting non-reclaimed locks are granted. The means by which the new server obtains the value of lease_time on the old server is left to the server implementations. It is not specified by the NFS version 4.0 protocol. 6. Results of proposed changes The purpose of this section is to examine the troubling results reported in Section 3.1. We will look at the scenarios as they would be handled within the proposal. Because the choice of uniform vs. non-uniform nfs_client_id4 id strings is a "MAY", we want to show that the problems are fixed with either one of the choices, which we abbreviate as follows; o MAY-UF-CID indicates clients choosing to base nfs_client_id4 id strings only on the identity of the client with no variation for different server addresses. o MAY-NUF-CID indicates clients choosing to base nfs_client_id4 id strings on a combination of the identity of the client and address of the server being addressed We will also have to take account of the various merger-related "SHOULD" clauses to better understand how they have addressed the issues seen, we abbreviate these (collectively known as "SHOULD- merges") as follows: o SHOULD-SVR-AM refers to the server obeying the SHOULD which RECOMMENDS that they merge leases with identical nfs_client_id4 id strings and verifiers. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 o SHOULD-CL-DM refers to the client obeying the SHOULD which RECOMMENDS that they give an indication to the server that two leases with different nfs_client_id4 id strings are really for the same client o SHOULD-SVR-DM refers to the server obeying the SHOULD which RECOMMENDS that they merge leases when the client helps by indicating that two leases are for the same client. o SHOULD-BOTH-DM indicates that both SHOULD-SVR-DM and SHOULD-CL-DM are in effect. 6.1. Results: Failure to free migrated state on client reboot Let's look at the troublesome situation cited in Section 3.1.1. We have already seen what happens when MAY-NUF-CID holds but none of the SHOULD-merges are in effect. Now let's look at the situation if MAY- UF-CID holds, whether any of the SHOULD-merge conditions are in effect or not. o A client C establishes a clientid4 C1 with server ABC specifying an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C-" and verifier 0x111. o The client begins to access files in file system F on server ABC, resulting in generating stateids S1, S2, etc. under the lease for clientid C1. It may also access files on other file systems on the same server. o The file system is migrated from ABC to server XYZ. When transparent state migration is in effect, stateids S1 and S2 and lease {0x111, "C", c1} C1 are now available for use by client C at server XYZ. So far, so good. o Client C reboots and attempts to access data on server XYZ, whether in filesystem F or another. It does a SETCLIENID with an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C" and verifier 0x112. The state associated with lease {0x111, "C", C1} is deleted as part of creating {0x112, "C", C2}. No problem. Now let's look at the troublesome situation when MAY-NUF-CID and SHOULD-BOTH-DM hold. o A client C establishes a clientid4 C1 with server ABC specifying an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C-ABC" and verifier 0x111. o The client begins to access files in file system F on server ABC, resulting in generating stateids S1, S2, etc. under the lease for clientid C1. It may also access files on other file systems on Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 23] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 the same server. o The file system is migrated from ABC to server XYZ. When transparent state migration is in effect, stateids S1 and S2 are part of the lease {0x111, "C-ABC", C1} and are transferred. if one does no already exist on XYZ, a lease {0x111, "C-XYZ", C2}. It then informs the server that C1 and C2 are for the same client and the server merges S1 and s2 into {0x111, "C-XYZ", C2} which is available for use by client C at server XYZ. So far, so good. o Client C reboots and attempts to access data on server XYZ, whether in filesystem F or another. It does a SETCLIENTID with an nfs_client_id4 with "id" value "C-XYZ" and verifier 0x112. This allows stateids S1 and S2 to be appropriately freed. no problem. The correctness signature for this issue is MAY-UF-CID | (MAY-NUF-CID & SHOULD-BOTH-DM) so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY. 6.2. Results: Server reboots resulting in confused lease situation Now let's consider the scenario given in Section 3.1.2. We have already seen what happens when MAY-NUF-CID holds but none of the SHOULD-merges are in effect. Now let's look at the situation in MAY- NUF-CID holds and SHOULD-SVR-AM holds as well. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.i established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i} o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state. Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i} o Server ABC reboots. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.j established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j} o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. as part of migration the incoming lease is seen to denote same Nfs_client_id4 and so is merged with {v1, "C-ABC, c.i} o Now XYZ has only one lease that matches {v1, "C_ABC", *}, so the problem is solved Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 24] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 Now let's consider the same scenario in the situation in which MAY- UF-CID holds and SHOULD-SVR-AM holds as well. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.i established: {v1, "C", c.i} o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state. Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C", c.i} o Server ABC reboots. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.j established: {v1, "C", c.j} o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. as part of migration the incoming lease is seen to denote same Nfs_client_id4 and so is merged with {v1, "C", c.i} o Now XYZ has only one lease that matches {v1, "C", *}, so the problem is solved Now let's consider the same scenario in a third situation in which MAY-NUF-CID holds and SHOULD-BOTH-DM holds as well. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.i established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i} o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state. Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C", c.i} o Server ABC reboots. o C Client talks to server ABC using an id like "C-ABC" and verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.j established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j} o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. as part of migration the incoming lease is seen to denote same Nfs_client_id4 and so is merged with {v1, "C", c.i} o Now XYZ has only one lease that matches {v1, "C_ABC", *}, so the problem is solved The correctness signature for this issue is SHOULD-SVR-AM | (MAY-NUF-CID & SHOULD-BOTH-DM) Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 25] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY. 6.3. Results: Client complexity issues Consider the following situation: o There are a set of clients C1 through Cn accessing servers S1 through Sm. Each server manages some significant number of file systems with the file system count L being significantly greater than m. o Each client Cx will access a subset of the servers and so will have up to m clientid's, which we will call Cxy for server Sy. o Now assume that for load-balancing or other operational reasons, numbers of file systems are migrated among the servers. As a result, depending on how this handled, the number of clientids may explode. See below. Now look what will happen under various scenarios: o We have previously (in Section 3.1.3) looked at this in the MAY- NUF-CID case in which none of the SHOULD-merge conditions held. In that, case each client-server pair could have up to m clientid's and each client will have up to m**2 clientids. If we add the possibility of server reboot, the only bound on a client's clientid count is L. o If we look at this in the MAY-UF-CID case in which none of the SHOULD-merge conditions hold, the situation is no different. Although the server has the client identity information that could enable same-client-same-server leases to be combined, it does not do so. We still have up to L clientid's per client. o On the other hand, if we look at the MAY-UF-CID case in which SHOULD-SVR-AM holds, the problem is gone. There can be no more than m clientids per client, and n clientid's per server. o Finally, let's look at the MAY-NUF-CID case in which SHOULD-BOTH-DM holds, the problem is also gone, although both the client and the server have to participate in lease merger. There can be no more than m clientids per client, and n clientid's per server. The correctness signature for this issue is Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 26] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 (MAY-UF-CID & SHOULD-SVR-AM) | (MAY-NUF-CID & SHOULD-BOTH-DM) so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY. 6.4. Result summary We have seen that (SHOULD-SVR-AM & SHOULD-BOTH-DM) are sufficient to solve the problems people have experienced. There are a few further points to be made. o as long as both MAY-UF-CID and MAY-NUF-CID are allowed, (SHOULD- SVR-AM & SHOULD-BOTH-DM) are necessary, as well as sufficient to solve the problems. o MAY-UF-CID alone does not solve the problems. Even if it were required, SHOULD-SVR-AM would be required as well. o Given that [RFC5661] follows a uniform id model, and that this alone does not solve the problems experienced, we need to see if SHOULD-SVR-AM or MUST-SVR-AM is currently in effect there or whether it needs to be added in NFSv4.1 via errata or in a subsequent RFC5661bis. 7. Security Considerations The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol [RFC3530], and the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] both agree. The section entitled "Security Considerations" encourages that clients protect the integrity of the SECINFO operation, any GETATTR operation for the fs_locations attribute, and the operations SETCLIENTID/SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM. A migration recovery event can use any or all of these operations. We do not recommend any change here. An unprotected state merge compound would allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to replace the migrated clientid. This attack prevents the destination server from properly identifying two leases to merge, or can even cause the server to merge leases from two unrelated clients. If the attacker replaces the result of the state merge compound, the client is tricked into believing that either a merger succeeded when it didn't, or didn't succeed when it did. The consequences of this are that client can perform unneeded state recovery. Thus it is imperative that the client protect the action of merging lease state, introduced in the present document, using an integrity- Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 27] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 protecting security flavor. See section 9.1.1 of the current pending draft of RFC3530bis [cur-v4.0-bis] for further details. 8. IANA Considerations This document does not require actions by IANA. 9. Acknowledgements The editor and authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Trond Myklebust of NetApp and Robert Thurlow of Oracle. We also thank Tom Haynes of NetApp and Spencer Shepler of Microsoft for their guidance and suggestions. Special thanks go to members of the Oracle Solaris NFS team, especially Rick Mesta and James Wahlig, for their work implementing an NFSv4.0 migration prototype and identifying many of the issues documented here. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003. 10.2. Informative References [RFC5661] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 5661, January 2010. [cur-v4.0-bis] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol", 2011, . Work in progress. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 28] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 Authors' Addresses David Noveck (editor) EMC Corporation 228 South Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 US Phone: +1 508 249 5748 Email: david.noveck@emc.com Piyush Shivam Oracle Corporation 5300 Riata Park Ct. Austin, TX 78727 US Phone: +1 512 401 1019 Email: piyush.shivam@oracle.com Charles Lever Oracle Corporation 1015 Granger Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48104 US Phone: +1 248 614 5091 Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com Bill Baker Oracle Corporation 5300 Riata Park Ct. Austin, TX 78727 US Phone: +1 512 401 1081 Email: bill.baker@oracle.com Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 29] Internet-Draft v4.0-migr-isssues August 2011 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Noveck, et al. Expires February 25, 2012 [Page 30]