[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                    Spencer Shepler
Internet Draft                                            November 1998
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-requirements-03.txt



                       NFS Version 4 Requirements



Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
   Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
   Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

Abstract

   With the creation of the NFS version 4 working group, a set of
   requirements for the next version of NFS must be codified to create a
   reasonable context for the new protocol discussions and aide in the
   upcoming decisions.  This Internet Draft has the purpose of
   presenting the requirements for NFS version 4 and will be used as the
   leading document for NFSv4 working group.















Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 1]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


Table of Contents

   1.  NFS Version 4 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Ease of implementation or complexity of protocol . . . . . . 3
   2.1.  Extensibility / layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.2.  Managed Extensions or Minor Versioning . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Reliable and Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Scalable Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.1.  Throughput and Latency on the Network  . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.2.  Server Work Load or Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.3.  Client Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.4.  Disconnected Client Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.1.  Platform Specific Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.2.  Additional or Extended Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.3.  Access Control Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  RPC Mechanism and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   6.1.  Remote Procedure Call Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   6.2.  User identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   6.3.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.3.1.  Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.3.2.  Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.3.3.  Data Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.3.4.  Security Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.3.5.  Security Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Internet Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.1.  Congestion Control and Transport Selection . . . . . . .  12
   7.2.  Firewalls and Proxy Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.3.  Multiple RPCs and Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  File locking / recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10.  Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12.  Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

















Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 2]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


1.  NFS Version 4 Requirements

   As stated in the charter, the first deliverable for the NFS version 4
   working group is this requirements document.  This document is to
   cover the "limitations and deficiencies of NFS version 3".  Therefore
   the intent of the following sections is to identify the various
   feature points of NFS as a distributed file system and discuss its
   current functionality and compare to other distributed file systems
   and offer reasonable requirements for each of these areas.


2.  Ease of implementation or complexity of protocol

   One of the strengths of NFS has been the ability to implement a
   client or server with relative ease.  The eventual size of a basic
   implementation is relatively small.  The main reason for keeping NFS
   as simple as possible is that a simple protocol design can be
   described in a simple specification that promotes straightforward,
   interoperable implementations.  All protocols can run into problems
   when deployed on real networks, but simple protocols yield problems
   that are easier to diagnose and correct.


2.1.  Extensibility / layering


   With NFS' relative simplicity, the addition or layering of
   functionality has been easy to accomplish.  The addition of features
   like the client automount or autofs, client side disk caching and
   high availability servers are examples.  This type of extensibility
   is desirable in an environment where problem solutions do not require
   protocol revision.  This extensibility can also be helpful in the
   future where unforeseen problems or opportunities can be solved by
   layering functionality on an existing set of tools or protocol.


2.2.  Managed Extensions or Minor Versioning


   For those cases where the NFS protocol is deficient or where a minor
   modification is the best solution for a problem, a minor version or a
   managed extension could be helpful.  There have been instances with
   NFS version 2 and 3 where small straightforward functional additions
   would have increased the overall value of the protocol immensely.
   For instance, the PATHCONF procedure that was added to version 2 of
   the MOUNT protocol would have been more appropriate for the NFS
   protocol. WebNFS [RFC2054][RFC2055] overloading of the LOOKUP
   procedure for NFS versions 2 and 3 would have been more cleanly



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 3]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   implemented in a new LOOKUP procedure.

   However, the perceived size and burden of using a change of RPC
   version number for the introduction of new functionality led to no or
   slow change.  It is possible that a new NFS protocol could allow for
   the rare instance where protocol extension within the RPC version
   number is the most prudent course and an RPC revision would be
   unnecessary or impractical.

   The areas of an NFS protocol which are most obviously volatile are
   new orthogonal procedures, new well-defined file or directory
   attributes and potentially new file types.  As an example, potential
   file types of the future could be a type such as "attribute" that
   represents a named file stream or a "dynamic" file type that
   generates dynamic data in response to a "query" procedure from the
   client.

   It is possible and highly desirable that these types of additions can
   be done without changing the overall design model of NFS without
   significant effort or delay.  This is particularly true in adding new
   procedures.

   A strong consideration should be given to a NFS protocol mechanism
   for the introduction of this type of new functionality.  This is
   obviously in contrast to using the standard RPC version mechanism to
   provide minor changes.  The process of using RPC version numbers to
   introduce new functionality brings with it a lot of history which may
   not technically prevent its use.  However, the historical issues
   involved will need to be addressed as part of the NFS protocol work
   to increase the chance of current and future success of the protocol.

   As background, the RPC protocol described in [RFC1831] uses a version
   number to describe the set of procedure calls, replies, and their
   semantics.  Any change in this set must be reflected in a new version
   number for the program.  An example of this was the
   MOUNTPROC_PATHCONF procedure added in version 2 of the MOUNT
   protocol.  Except for the addition of this new procedure, the
   protocol was unchanged.  Many thought this protocol revision was
   unnecessary, since the RPC protocol already allows certain procedures
   not be implemented and defines a PROC_UNAVAIL error.


3.  Reliable and Available


   Current NFS protocol design has lead to quick recovery from server
   and client failure.  This approach to the design has lent itself well
   to layered technologies like high availability and clustered servers.



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 4]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   Providing a protocol design approach that lends itself to these types
   of reliability and availability features is very desirable.

   For the next version of NFS, consideration should be given to client
   side availability schemes such as client switching between or fail-
   over to available server replicas.  NFS currently requires that file
   handles be immutable; this requirement adds unnecessarily to the
   complexity of building fail-over configurations.  If possible, the
   protocol should allow for or ease the building of such layered
   solutions.


4.  Scalable Performance


   In designing and developing an NFS protocol from a performance
   viewpoint there are several different points to consider.  Each can
   play a significant role in perceived and real performance from the
   user's perspective.  The three main areas of interest are: throughput
   and latency on the network, server work load or scalability and
   client side caching.


4.1.  Throughput and Latency on the Network


   NFS currently has characteristics that provide good throughput for
   the reading and writing of file data.  However, the number of RPCs
   required to accomplish some tasks combined with high latency network
   environments leads to sluggish response.  The protocol should
   continue to provide good raw read and write throughput while
   addressing the issue of network latency.  This issue is discussed
   further in the section on Internet Accessibility.


4.2.  Server Work Load or Scalability


   Current NFS operations are relatively lightweight in that the
   processing work for most of the operations is not CPU intensive.
   This allows for potential support of a large number of clients.  This
   attribute can also be helpful in building efficient and scalable SMP
   or cluster based servers.  While this type of protocol design
   (lightweight operations) is desirable, it needs to be balanced
   against the previous issue of having the client generate a large
   number of RPCs to accomplish a straight forward task.





Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 5]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


4.3.  Client Caching


   In an attempt to speed response time and to reduce network and server
   load, NFS clients have always cached directory and file data.
   However, this has usually been done as memory cache and in relatively
   recent history, local disk caching has been added.

   Having the client cache directory and file data is very desirable.
   Other distributed file systems have shown that aggressive client side
   caching can be very visible to the end user in the form of response
   time gains.  For AFS and DCE/DFS this is accomplished by the
   utilization of server call backs to notify the client of potential
   cache invalidation.  CIFS uses opportunistic locks to provide a
   similar call back mechanism.  These clients can cache large amounts
   of data avoiding traffic with the server.

   Client caching is increasingly important for Internet environments
   where throughput can be limited and response time can grow
   significantly.  Based on these factors, the NFS protocol should allow
   for aggressive caching while balancing the needs for simplicity and
   Internet accessibility (i.e. firewalls).

   If possible, the caching ability should be layered on the protocol
   instead of embedding specific client caching functions in the
   protocol itself.  This approach will allow for clients that are
   unable to or choose not to cache data the ability to interact with a
   server without encumbered protocol functions that assume client
   caching.


4.4.  Disconnected Client Operation


   An extension of client caching is the idea or functionality of
   disconnected operation at the client.  With the ability to cache
   directory and file data aggressively, a client could then provide
   service to the end user while disconnected from the server or
   network.

   While very desirable, disconnected operation has the opportunity to
   inflict itself upon the NFS protocol in an undesirable way as
   compared to traditional client caching.  Given the complexities of
   disconnected client operation and subsequent resolution of client
   data modification through various playback or data selection
   mechanisms, disconnected operation should not be a requirement for
   the NFS effort.  Even so, the NFS protocol should consider the
   potential layering of disconnected operation solutions on top of the



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 6]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   NFS protocol (as with other server and client solutions).  The
   experiences with Coda, disconnected AFS and others should be helpful
   in this area. (see references)


5.  Interoperability

   The NFS protocols are available for many different operating
   environments.  Even though this shows the protocol's ability to
   provide distributed file system service for more than a single
   operating system, the design of NFS is certainly Unix centric.  The
   next NFS protocol needs to be more inclusively of platform or file
   system features beyond those of traditional Unix.


5.1.  Platform Specific Behavior


   Because of its Unix centric design, some of the protocol requirements
   have been difficult to implement in some environments.  For example,
   persistent file handles (unique identifiers of file system objects),
   Unix uid/gid mappings, directory modification time, accurate file
   sizes, file/directory locking semantics (SHAREs, PC-style locking).


5.2.  Additional or Extended Attributes

   NFS Versions 2 and 3 do not provide for file or directory attributes
   beyond those that are found in the traditional Unix environment; for
   example the user identifier/owner of the file, a permission or access
   bitmap, time stamps for modification of the file or directory and
   file size to name a few.  While the current set of attributes has
   usually been sufficient, the file system's ability to manage
   additional information associated with a file or directory can be
   useful.

   There are many possibilities for additional attributes in the next
   version of NFS.  Some of these include: object creation timestamp,
   user identifier of file's creator, timestamp of last backup or
   archival bit, version number, file content type (MIME type),
   existence of data management involvement (i.e. DMAPI [XDSM]).

   This list is representative of the possibilities and are meant to
   show the need for an additional attribute set.  Enumerating the
   'correct' set of attributes is difficult and is one of the reasons
   for looking towards minor versioning as a way to provide needed
   extensibility.  Another way to provide some extensibility is in
   providing support for a generalized named attribute mechanism.  This



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 7]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   mechanism would allow a client to name, store and retrieve arbitrary
   data and have it associated as an attribute of a file or directory.

   One difficulty in providing this feature is determining if the
   protocol should specify the names for the attributes, their type or
   structure.  How will the protocol determine or allow for attributes
   that can be read but not written is another issue.  Yet another could
   be the side effects that these attributes have on the core set of
   file properties such as setting a size attribute to 0 and having
   associated file data deleted.

   As these brief examples show, this type of extended attribute
   mechanism brings with it a large set of issues that will need to be
   addressed in the protocol specification while keeping the overall
   goal of simplicity in mind.

   However, there are operating environments that provide named or
   extended attribute mechanisms.  Digital Unix provides for the storage
   of extended attributes with some generalized format.  HPFS[HPFS] and
   NTFS [Nagar] also provide for named data associated with traditional
   files.  SGI's local file system, XFS, also provides for this type of
   name/value extended attributes. However, there does not seem to be a
   clear direction that can be taken from these or other environments.


5.3.  Access Control Lists

   Access Control Lists (ACL) can be viewed as one specific type of
   extended attribute.  This attribute is a designation of user access
   to a file or directory.  Many vendors have created ancillary
   protocols to NFS to extend the server's ACL mechanism across the
   network.  Generally this has been done for homogeneous operating
   environments. Even though the server still interprets the ACL and has
   final control over access to a file system object, the client is able
   to manipulate the ACL via these additional protocols.  Other
   distributed file systems have also provided ACL support.  DFS, AFS
   and CIFS to name a few.

   The basic factor driving the requirement for ACL support in all of
   these file systems has been the user's desire to grant and restrict
   access to file system data on a per user basis.  Based on the desire
   of the user and current distributed file system support, it seems to
   be a requirement that NFS provide this capability as well.

   Because many local and distributed file system ACL implementations
   have been done without a common architecture, the major issue is one
   of compatibility.  Although the POSIX draft, DCE/DFS [DCEACL] and
   Windows NT ACLs have a similar structure in an array of Access



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 8]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   Control Entries consisting of a type field, identity, and permission
   bits, the similarity ends there.  Each model defines its own variants
   of entry types, identifies users and groups differently, provides
   different kinds of permission bits, and describe different procedures
   for ACL creation, defaults, and evaluation.

   In the least it will be problematic to create a workable ACL
   mechanism that will encompass a reasonable set of functionality for
   all operating environments.  Even with the complicated nature of ACL
   support it is still worthwhile to work towards a solution that can at
   least provide basic functionality for the user.


6.  RPC Mechanism and Security


   NFS relies on the underlying security mechanisms provided by the
   ONCRPC protocol.  Until the introduction of the ONCRPC RPCSEC_GSS
   security flavor, NFS security was generally limited to none
   (AUTH_SYS) or DES (AUTH_DH).  The AUTH_DH security flavor was not
   successful in providing readily available security for NFS because of
   a lack of implementation and deployment.  Also the Diffie-Hellman 192
   bit public keys modulos used for the AUTH_DH security flavor quickly
   became too small for reasonable security.


6.1.  Remote Procedure Call Mechanism


   The ONCRPC protocol provides the basic NFS foundation for the
   following reasons:

   o    Open protocol definition managed by IETF

   o    Transport independent (i.e. UDP and TCP supported)

   o    Simple data representation and procedure encoding models

   o    Various security mechanisms available through use of RPCSEC_GSS


6.2.  User identification


   NFS has been limited to the use of the Unix centric user
   identification mechanism of numeric user id based on the available
   file system attributes and the use of the ONCRPC.  However, for NFS
   to move beyond the limits of large work groups, user identification



Expires: April 1999                                             [Page 9]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   should be string based and the definition of the user identifier
   should allow for integration into an external naming service or
   services.

   Internet scaling should also be considered for this as well.  The
   identification mechanism should take into account multiple naming
   domains and other extremes that can be presented by use outside of
   the work group.

   If NFS is to move among various naming and security services, it may
   be necessary to stay with a string based identification.  This would
   allow for servers and clients to translate between the external
   string representation to a local or internal numeric (or other
   identifier) which matches internal implementation needs.

   DFS uses a string based naming scheme but translates the name to a
   UUID (16 byte identifier) that is used for internal protocol
   representations. The DCE/DFS string name is a combination of cell
   (administrative domain) and user name.  As mentioned, NFS clients and
   servers map a Unix user name to a 32 bit user identifier that is then
   used for ONCRPC and NFS protocol fields requiring the user
   identifier.


6.3.  Security


   As a result of a lack of implementation and deployment and relatively
   weak protection, authentication has been a major issue for ONCRPC and
   hence NFS.  With the introduction of the RPCSEC_GSS security flavor,
   ONCRPC can provide for reasonable authentication along with integrity
   and privacy, if desired.  The RPCSEC_GSS framework will allow the use
   of both public and private key mechanisms.  Therefore, NFS as a user
   of ONCRPC should state its specific requirements for each of these
   areas.

   In comparison, AFS and DFS provide strong authentication mechanisms.
   CIFS does provide authentication at initial server contact and a
   message signing option for subsequent interaction.


6.3.1.  Authentication


   Strong authentication is a requirement for NFS and the logical
   solution for this is in the use of ONCRPC and RPCSEC_GSS.  This
   solution will allow for both private and public key mechanisms to be
   employed if required.  This flexibility will allow for security



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 10]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   usability in varying environments.


6.3.2.  Data Integrity


   Since file and directory data is the essence of distributed file
   service, the NFS protocol should provide to the users of the file
   service a reasonable level of data integrity.  The RPCSEC_GSS
   mechanisms chosen to protect NFS data should use a cryptographically
   strong checksum.


6.3.3.  Data Privacy


   Data privacy, while desirable, is not as important in all
   environments as authentication and integrity.  For example, in a LAN
   environment the performance overhead of data privacy may not be
   required to meet an organization's data protection policies.  It may
   also be the case that the performance of the distributed file system
   solution is more important than the data privacy of that solution.
   Therefore, data privacy should be an available option within NFS but
   not a requirement.


6.3.4.  Security Mechanisms


   With the use of the RPCSEC_GSS framework, both public and private
   mechanisms can and should be provided by NFS.  The choice from both
   public and private key mechanisms will allow for the appropriate
   choice being made by the user based on factors within their
   environment.

   Potential choices for the private key mechanism would be Kerberos V5
   and for the public key choice, SPKM [RFC2025] is available.


6.3.5.  Security Negotiation


   With both private and public key mechanisms available to the end
   user, the NFS server and client will need a method to negotiate
   appropriate usage based on availability and policy.  This negotiation
   should account for authentication, integrity, and privacy so that
   administrators and users can employ the appropriate security policies
   for their environments.



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 11]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


7.  Internet Accessibility


   Being a product of an IETF working group, the NFS protocol should not
   only be built upon IETF technologies where possible but should also
   work well within the broader Internet environment.


7.1.  Congestion Control and Transport Selection


   As with any network protocol, congestion control is a major issue and
   the transport mechanisms that are chosen for NFS should take this
   into account.  Traditionally implementations of NFS have been
   deployed using both UDP and TCP.  With the use of UDP, most
   implementations provide a rudimentary attempt of congestion control
   with simple back-off algorithms and round trip timers.  While this
   may be sufficient in today's NFS deployments, as an Internet protocol
   NFS will need to ensure sufficient congestion control or management.

   With congestion control in mind, NFS must use TCP as a transport (via
   ONCRPC).  The UDP transport provides its own advantages in certain
   circumstances.  In today's NFS implementations, UDP has been shown to
   produce greater throughput as compared to similarly configured
   systems that use TCP.  If UDP is to be supplied as an NFS transport
   mechanism, then the issues of congestion control must be dealt with.


7.2.  Firewalls and Proxy Servers


   NFS's protocol design should allow its use via Internet firewalls.
   The protocol should also allow for the use of file system proxy/cache
   servers.  Proxy servers can be very useful for scalability and other
   reasons.  The NFS protocol needs to address the need of proxy servers
   in a way that will deal with the issues of security, access control,
   and content control.  It is possible that these issues can be
   addressed by documenting the related issues of proxy server usage.
   However, it is likely that the NFS protocol will need to support
   proxy servers directly through the NFS protocol.

   The protocol could allow a request to be sent to a proxy that
   contains the name of the target NFS server to which the request might
   be forwarded, or from which a response might be cached.  In any case,
   the NFS proxy server should be considered during protocol
   development.





Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 12]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


7.3.  Multiple RPCs and Latency

   As an application at the NFS client performs simple file system
   operations, multiple NFS operations or RPCs may be executed to
   accomplish the work for the application.  While the NFS version 3
   protocol addressed some of this by returning file and directory
   attributes for most procedures hence reducing follow up GETATTR
   requests, there is still room for improvement.  Reducing the number
   of RPCs can lead to a reduction of processing overhead on the server
   (transport and security processing) along with reducing the time
   spent at the client waiting for the server's individual responses.
   This issue is more prominent in environments with larger degrees of
   latency.

   The CIFS file access protocol supports 'batched requests' that allow
   multiple requests to be batched and therefore reducing the number of
   round trip messages between client and server.

   This same approach can be used by NFS to allow the grouping of
   multiple procedure calls together in a traditional RPC request.  Not
   only would this allow for the reduction in protocol imposed latency
   but would reduce transport and security processing overhead and could
   allow a client to complete more complex tasks by combining
   procedures.


8.  File locking / recovery


   NFS has provided Unix file locking and DOS SHARE capability with the
   use of an ancillary protocol (Network Lock Manager / NLM).  The DOS
   SHARE mechanism is the DOS equivalent of file locking in that it
   provides the basis for the sharing or exclusive access to file and
   directory data without risk of data corruption. The NLM protocol
   provides for file locking and recovery of those locks in the event of
   client or server failure.  NLM requires that the server make call
   backs to the client for certain scenarios and therefore is not
   necessarily well suited for Internet firewall traversal.

   Desirable features of file locking support are:

   o    Integration with the NFS protocol.

   o    Interoperability between operating environments.  The protocol
        should make a reasonable effort to support the locking semantics
        of both PC and Unix clients and servers.

   o    Scalable solutions - thousands of clients.  The server should



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 13]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


        not be required to maintain client lock state across reboots.

   o    Internet capable (firewall traversal, latency sensitive).  The
        server should not be required to initiate TCP connections to
        clients.

   o    Timely recovery in the event of client/server or network
        failure.  Server recovery should be rapid. The protocol should
        allow clients to detect the loss of a lock.

        CIFS supports file locking and DOS SHARE support.


9.  Internationalization


   The current NFS protocols are limited in their support of anything
   more than 7-bit ASCII strings.  It is imperative that NFS support a
   range of character sets.  This can be provided by requiring support
   for Unicode with a UTF-8 wire encoding.  Therefore, all strings
   defined as part of the NFS protocol will need to be defined as UTF-8
   and the appropriate XDR encoding used.





























Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 14]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


10.  Bibliography


   [RFC1094]
   Sun Microsystems, Inc., "NFS: Network File System Protocol
   Specification", RFC1094, March 1989.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1094.txt


   [RFC1813]
   Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., Staubach, P., "NFS Version 3 Protocol
   Specification", RFC1813, Sun Microsystems, Inc., June 1995.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1813.txt


   [RFC1831]
   Srinivasan, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
   Version 2", RFC1831, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1831.txt


   [RFC1832]
   Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
   RFC1832, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1832.txt


   [RFC1833]
   Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2", RFC1833,
   Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1833.txt


   [RFC2025]
   Adams, C., "The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM)", RFC2025,
   Bell-Northern Research, October 1996.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2025.txt


   [RFC2054]
   Callaghan, B., "WebNFS Client Specification", RFC2054, Sun
   Microsystems, Inc., October 1996



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 15]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2054.txt


   [RFC2055]
   Callaghan, B., "WebNFS Server Specification", RFC2055, Sun
   Microsystems, Inc., October 1996

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2055.txt


   [RFC2078]
   Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface,
   Version 2", RFC2078, OpenVision Technologies, January 1997.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2078.txt


   [RFC2203]
   Eisler, M., Chiu, A., Ling, L., "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification"
   RFC2203, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.

   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2203.txt


   [DCEACL]
   The Open Group, Open Group Technical Standard, "DCE 1.1:
   Authentication and Security Services," Document Number C311, August
   1997. Provides a discussion of DEC ACL structure and semantics.


   [HPFS]
   Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd, "The HPFS FAQ,"
   http://www.lesbell.com.au/hpfsfaq.html


   [Hutson]
   Huston, L.B., Honeyman, P., "Disconnected Operation for AFS," June
   1993. Proc. USENIX Symp. on Mobile and Location-Independent
   Computing, Cambridge, August 1993.


   [Kistler]
   Kistler, James J., Satyanarayanan, M., "Disconnected Operations in
   the Coda File System," ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, vol. 10, no.
   1, pp. 3-25, Feb. 1992.


   [Mummert]



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 16]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   Mummert, L. B., Ebling,  M. R., Satyanarayanan,  M., "Exploiting Weak
   Connectivity for Mobile File Access," Proc. of the 15th ACM Symp. on
   Operating Systems Principles Dec. 1995.


   [Nagar]
   Nagar, R., "Windows NT File System Internals," ISBN 1565922492,
   O`Reilly & Associates, Inc.


   [Sandberg]
   Sandberg, R., D. Goldberg, S. Kleiman, D. Walsh, B.  Lyon, "Design
   and Implementation of the Sun Network Filesystem," USENIX Conference
   Proceedings, USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, Summer 1985.  The
   basic paper describing the SunOS implementation of the NFS version 2
   protocol, and discusses the goals, protocol specification and trade-
   offs.


   [Satyanarayanan1]
   Satyanarayanan, M., "Fundamental Challenges in Mobile Computing,"
   Proc. of the ACM Principles of Distributed Computing, 1995.


   [Satyanarayanan2]
   Satyanarayanan, M., Kistler, J. J., Mummert L. B., Ebling M. R.,
   Kumar, P. , Lu,  Q., "Experience with disconnected operation in
   mobile computing environment," Proc. of the USENIX Symp. on Mobile
   and Location-Independent Computing, Jun. 1993.


   [PCNFS]
   The Open Group, Open Group Developers' Specification "Protocols for
   X/Open PC Interworking: (PC)NFS," ISBN 1-872630-00-6, August 1990.
   This is an indispensable reference for NFS version 2 protocol and
   accompanying protocols, including the Lock Manager and the
   Portmapper.


   [XDSM]
   The Open Group, Open Group Technical Standard, "Systems Management:
   Data Storage Management (XDSM) API," ISBN 1-85912-190-X, January
   1997.


   [XNFS]
   The Open Group, Open Group Technical Standard, "Protocols for
   Interworking: XNFS, Version 3W," ISBN 1-85912-184-5, February 1998.



Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 17]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


   This is an indispensable reference for NFS version 2 protocol and
   accompanying protocols, including the Lock Manager and the
   Portmapper.
















































Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 18]


NFSv4                      NFSv4 Requirements              November 1998


11.  Acknowledgments


   o    Brent Callaghan for content contributions.

12.  Author's Address

   Address comments related to this memorandum to:

        spencer.shepler@eng.sun.com -or- nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com

   Spencer Shepler
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   7808 Moonflower Drive
   Austin, Texas 78750

   Phone: (512) 349-9376
   E-mail: spencer.shepler@eng.sun.com

































Expires: April 1999                                            [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/