[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 1.121, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/