Oracle Corporation

1015 Granger Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48104 USA +1 248 816 6463 chuck.lever@oracle.com

Transport Network File System Version 4 NFS-Over-RDMA This document specifies Upper Layer Bindings of Network File System (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA. Upper Layer Bindings are required to enable RPC-based protocols, such as NFS, to use Direct Data Placement on RPC-over-RDMA. This document obsoletes RFC 5667. 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 .

An RPC-over-RDMA transport, such as the one defined in , may employ direct data placement to convey data payloads associated with RPC transactions. To enable successful interoperation, RPC client and server implementations must agree as to which XDR data items in what particular RPC procedures are eligible for direct data placement (DDP). This document contains material required of Upper Layer Bindings, as specified in , for the following NFS protocol versions: NFS Version 2 NFS Version 3 NFS Version 4.0 NFS Version 4.1 NFS Version 4.2 Upper Layer Bindings specified in this document apply to all versions of RPC-over-RDMA.

Definitions of terminology and a general discussion of how RPC-over-RDMA is used to convey RPC transactions can be found in . In this section, these general principles are applied in the context of conveying NFS procedures on RPC-over-RDMA. Some issues common to all NFS protocol versions are introduced.

The Read list in each RPC-over-RDMA transport header represents a set of memory regions containing DDP-eligible NFS argument data. Large data items, such as the data payload of an NFS version 3 WRITE procedure, can be referenced by the Read list. The NFS server pulls such payloads from the client and places them directly into its own memory. Exactly which XDR data items may be conveyed in this fashion is detailed later in this document.

The Write list in each RPC-over-RDMA transport header represents a set of memory regions that can receive DDP-eligible NFS result data. Large data items, such as the payload of an NFS version 3 READ procedure, can be referenced by the Write list. The NFS server pushes such payloads to the client, placing them directly into the client's memory. Each Write chunk corresponds to a specific XDR data item in an NFS reply. This document specifies how NFS client and server implementations identify the correspondence between Write chunks and XDR results. Exactly which XDR data items may be conveyed in this fashion is detailed later in this document.

Small RPC messages are conveyed using RDMA Send operations which are of limited size. If an NFS request is too large to be conveyed within the NFS server's responder inline threshold, and there are no DDP-eligible data items that can be removed, an NFS client must send the request in the form of a Long Call. The entire NFS request is sent in a special Read chunk called a Position Zero Read chunk. If an NFS client determines that the maximum size of an NFS reply could be too large to be conveyed within it's own responder inline threshold, it provides a Reply chunk in the RPC-over-RDMA transport header conveying the NFS request. The server places the entire NFS reply in the Reply chunk. When the RPC authentication flavor requires that DDP-eligible data items are never removed from RPC messages, an NFS client can provide both a Position Zero Read chunk and a Reply chunk for the same RPC. These special chunks are discussed in further detail in .

A chunk typically corresponds to exactly one XDR data item. Each Read chunk is represented as a list of segments at the same XDR Position. Each Write chunk is represented as an array of segments. An NFS client thus has the flexibility to advertise a set of discontiguous memory regions in which to convey a single DDP-eligible XDR data item.

To report a DDP-eligibity violation, an NFS server MUST return one of: An RPC-over-RDMA message of type RDMA_ERROR, with the rdma_xid field set to the XID of the matching NFS Call, and the rdma_error field set to ERR_CHUNK; or An RPC message (via an RDMA_MSG message) with the xid field set to the XID of the matching NFS Call, the mtype field set to REPLY, the stat field set to MSG_ACCEPTED, and the accept_stat field set to GARBAGE_ARGS. Subsequent sections of this document describe further considerations particular to specific NFS protocols or procedures.

During the construction of each RPC Call message, an NFS client is responsible for allocating appropriate resources for receiving the matching Reply message. A Reply buffer overrun can result in corruption of the Reply message or termination of the transport connection. Therefore reliable reply size estimation is necessary to ensure successful interoperation. In many cases the Upper Layer Protocol's XDR definition provides enough information to enable the client to make a reliable prediction of the maximum size of the expected Reply message. If there are variable-size data items in the result, the maximum size of the RPC Reply message can be reliably estimated in most cases: The client requests only a specific portion of an object (for example, using the "count" and "offset" fields in an NFS READ). The client has already cached the size of the whole object it is about to request (say, via a previous NFS GETATTR request). It is occasionally not possible to determine the maximum Reply message size based solely on the above criteria. NFS client implementers can choose to provide the largest possible Reply buffer in those cases, based on, for instance, the largest possible NFS READ or WRITE payload (which is negotiated at mount time). In rare cases, a client may encounter a reply for which no a priori determination of reply size bound is possible. The client SHOULD expect a transport error to indicate that it must either terminate that RPC transaction, or retry it with a larger Reply chunk. The use of NFS COMPOUND operations raises the possibility of non-idempotent requests that combine a non-idempotent operation with an operation whose reply size is uncertain. This causes potential difficulties with retrying the transaction. Note however that many operations normally considered non-idempotent (e.g WRITE, SETATTR) are actually idempotent. Truly non-idempotent operations are quite unusual in COMPOUNDs that include operations with uncertain reply sizes.

This Upper Layer Binding specification applies to NFS Version 2 and NFS Version 3 . For brevity, in this section a "legacy NFS client" refers to an NFS client using NFS version 2 or NFS version 3 to communicate with an NFS server. Likewise, a "legacy NFS server" is an NFS server communicating with clients using NFS version 2 or NFS version 3. The following XDR data items in NFS versions 2 and 3 are DDP-eligible: The opaque file data argument in the NFS WRITE procedure The pathname argument in the NFS SYMLINK procedure The opaque file data result in the NFS READ procedure The pathname result in the NFS READLINK procedure All other argument or result data items in NFS versions 2 and 3 are not DDP-eligible. A legacy server's response to a DDP-eligibility violation (described in ) does not give an indication to legacy clients of whether the server has processed the arguments of the RPC Call, or whether the server has accessed or modified client memory associated with that RPC. A legacy NFS client determines the maximum reply size for each operation using the basic criteria outlined in . Such clients provide a Reply chunk when the maximum possible reply size, exclusive of any data items represented by Write chunks, is larger than the client's responder inline threshold.

NFS versions 2 and 3 are typically deployed with several other protocols, sometimes referred to as "NFS auxiliary protocols." These are separate RPC programs that define procedures which are not part of the NFS version 2 or version 3 RPC programs. These include: The MOUNT and NLM protocols, introduced in an appendix of The NSM protocol, described in Chapter 11 of The NFSACL protocol, which does not have a public definition (NFSACL here is treated as a de facto standard as there are several interoperating implementations). RPC-over-RDMA considers these programs as distinct Upper Layer Protocols . To enable the use of these ULPs on an RPC-over-RDMA transport, an Upper Layer Binding specification is provided here for each.

Typically MOUNT, NLM, and NSM are conveyed via TCP, even in deployments where NFS operations on RPC-over-RDMA. When a legacy server supports these programs on RPC-over-RDMA, it advertises the port address via the usual rpcbind service . No operation in these protocols conveys a significant data payload, and the size of RPC messages in these protocols is uniformly small. Therefore, no XDR data items in these protocols are DDP-eligible. The largest variable-length XDR data item is an xdr_netobj. In most implementations this data item is not larger than 1024 bytes, making reliable reply size estimation straightforward using the criteria outlined in .

Legacy clients and servers that support the NFSACL RPC program typically convey NFSACL procedures on the same connection as the NFS RPC program. This obviates the need for separate rpcbind queries to discover server support for this RPC program. ACLs are typically small, but even large ACLs must be encoded and decoded to some degree. Thus no data item in this Upper Layer Protocol is DDP-eligible. For procedures whose replies do not include an ACL object, the size of a reply is determined directly from the NFSACL program's XDR definition. There is no protocol-wide size limit for NFS version 3 ACLs, and there is no mechanism in either the NFSACL or NFS programs for a legacy client to ascertain the largest ACL a legacy server can store. Legacy client implementations should choose a maximum size for ACLs based on their own internal limits. A recommended lower bound for this maximum is 32,768 bytes, though a larger Reply chunk (up to the negotiated rsize setting) can be provided.

This Upper Layer Binding specification applies to all protocols defined in NFS Version 4.0 , NFS Version 4.1 , and NFS Version 4.2 .

Only the following XDR data items in the COMPOUND procedure of all NFS version 4 minor versions are DDP-eligible: The opaque data field in the WRITE4args structure The linkdata field of the NF4LNK arm in the createtype4 union The opaque data field in the READ4resok structure The linkdata field in the READLINK4resok structure In minor version 2 and newer, the rpc_data field of the read_plus_content union (further restrictions on the use of this data item follow below).

The NFS version 4.2 READ_PLUS operation returns a complex data type . The rpr_contents field in the result of this operation is an array of read_plus_content unions, one arm of which contains an opaque byte stream (d_data). The size of d_data is limited to the value of the rpa_count field, but the protocol does not bound the number of elements which can be returned in the rpr_contents array. In order to make the size of READ_PLUS replies predictable by NFS version 4.2 clients, the following restrictions are placed on the use of the READ_PLUS operation on RPC-over-RDMA transports: An NFS version 4.2 client MUST NOT provide more than one Write chunk for any READ_PLUS operation. When providing a Write chunk for a READ_PLUS operation, an NFS version 4.2 client MUST provide a Write chunk that is either empty (which forces all result data items for this operation to be returned inline) or large enough to receive rpa_count bytes in a single element of the rpr_contents array. If the Write chunk provided for a READ_PLUS operation by an NFS version 4.2 client is not empty, an NFS version 4.2 server MUST use that chunk for the first element of the rpr_contents array that has an rpc_data arm. An NFS version 4.2 server MUST NOT return more than two elements in the rpr_contents array of any READ_PLUS operation. It returns as much of the requested byte range as it can fit within these two elements. If the NFS version 4.2 server has not asserted rpr_eof in the reply, the NFS version 4.2 client SHOULD send additional READ_PLUS requests for any remaining bytes.

An NFS version 4 client provides a Reply chunk when the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's responder inline threshold. There are certain NFS version 4 data items whose size cannot be estimated by clients reliably, however, because there is no protocol-specified size limit on these structures. These include: The attrlist4 field Fields containing ACLs such as fattr4_acl, fattr4_dacl, fattr4_sacl Fields in the fs_locations4 and fs_locations_info4 data structures Opaque fields which pertain to pNFS layout metadata, such as loc_body, loh_body, da_addr_body, lou_body, lrf_body, fattr_layout_types and fs_layout_types,

The items enumerated above in make it difficult to predict the maximum size of GETATTR replies that interrogate variable-length attributes. As discussed in , client implementations can rely on their own internal architectural limits to bound the reply size, but such limits are not guaranteed to be reliable. If a client implementation is equipped to recognize that a transport error could mean that it provisioned an inadequately sized Reply chunk, it can retry the operation with a larger Reply chunk. Otherwise, the client must terminate the RPC transaction. It is best to avoid issuing single COMPOUNDs that contain both non-idempotent operations and operations where the maximum reply size cannot be reliably predicted.

In NFS version 4.1 and newer minor versions, the csa_fore_chan_attrs argument of the CREATE_SESSION operation contains a ca_maxresponsesize field. The value in this field can be taken as the absolute maximum size of replies generated by a replying NFS version 4 server. This value can be used in cases where it is not possible to estimate a reply size upper bound precisely. In practice, objects such as ACLs, named attributes, layout bodies, and security labels are much smaller than this maximum.

The NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure allows the transmission of more than one DDP-eligible data item per Call and Reply message. An NFS version 4 client provides XDR Position values in each Read chunk to disambiguate which chunk is associated with which argument data item. However NFS version 4 server and client implementations must agree in advance on how to pair Write chunks with returned result data items. The mechanism specified in Section 4.3.2 of ) is applied here, with additional restrictions that appear below. In the following list, an "NFS Read" operation refers to any NFS Version 4 operation which has a DDP-eligible result data item (i.e., either a READ, READ_PLUS, or READLINK operation). If an NFS version 4 client wishes all DDP-eligible items in an NFS reply to be conveyed inline, it leaves the Write list empty. The first chunk in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ operation in an NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure. The next Write chunk is used by the next READ operation, and so on. If an NFS version 4 client has provided a matching non-empty Write chunk, then the corresponding READ operation MUST return its DDP-eligible data item using that chunk. If an NFS version 4 client has provided an empty matching Write chunk, then the corresponding READ operation MUST return all of its result data items inline. If an READ operation returns a union arm which does not contain a DDP-eligible result, and the NFS version 4 client has provided a matching non-empty Write chunk, an NFS version 4 server MUST return an empty Write chunk in that Write list position. If there are more READ operations than Write chunks, then remaining NFS Read operations in an NFS version 4 COMPOUND that have no matching Write chunk MUST return their results inline.

The following example shows a Write list with three Write chunks, A, B, and C. The NFS version 4 server consumes the provided Write chunks by writing the results of the designated operations in the compound request (READ and READLINK) back to each chunk.

Write list: A --> B --> C NFS version 4 COMPOUND request: PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ | | | v v v A B C

If the NFS version 4 client does not want to have the READLINK result returned via RDMA, it provides an empty Write chunk for buffer B to indicate that the READLINK result must be returned inline.

The NFS version 4 protocols support server-initiated callbacks to notify clients of events such as recalled delegations.

NFS version 4.0 implementations typically employ a separate TCP connection to handle callback operations, even when the forward channel uses a RPC-over-RDMA transport. No operation in the NFS version 4.0 callback RPC program conveys a significant data payload. Therefore, no XDR data items in this RPC program is DDP-eligible. A CB_RECALL reply is small and fixed in size. The CB_GETATTR reply contains a variable-length fattr4 data item. See for a discussion of reply size prediction for this data item. An NFS version 4.0 client advertises netids and ad hoc port addresses for contacting its NFS version 4.0 callback service using the SETCLIENTID operation.

In NFS version 4.1 and newer minor versions, callback operations may appear on the same connection as is used for NFS version 4 forward channel client requests. NFS version 4 clients and servers MUST use the mechanism described in when backchannel operations are conveyed on RPC-over-RDMA transports. The csa_back_chan_attrs argument of the CREATE_SESSION operation contains a ca_maxresponsesize field. The value in this field can be taken as the absolute maximum size of backchannel replies generated by a replying NFS version 4 client. There are no DDP-eligible data items in callback procedures defined in NFS version 4.1 or NFS version 4.2. However, some callback operations, such as messages that convey device ID information, can be large, in which case a Long Call or Reply might be required. When an NFS version 4.1 client reports a backchannel ca_maxrequestsize that is larger than the connection's inline thresholds, the NFS version 4 client can support Long Calls. Otherwise an NFS version 4 server MUST use Short messages to convey backchannel operations.

Typically the presence of an NFS session has no effect on the operation of RPC-over-RDMA. None of the operations introduced to support NFS sessions contain DDP-eligible data items. There is no need to match the number of session slots with the number of available RPC-over-RDMA credits. However, there are some rare error conditions which require special handling when an NFS session is operating on an RPC-over-RDMA transport. For example, a requester might receive, in response to an RPC request, an RDMA_ERROR message with an rdma_err value of ERR_CHUNK, or an RDMA_MSG containing an RPC_GARBAGEARGS reply. Within RPC-over-RDMA Version One, this class of error can be generated for two different reasons: There was an XDR error detected parsing the RPC-over-RDMA headers. There was an error sending the response, because, for example, a necessary reply chunk was not provided or the one provided is of insufficient length. These two situations, which arise due to incorrect implementations or underestimation of reply size, have different implications with regard to Exactly-Once Semantics. An XDR error in decoding the request precludes the execution of the request on the responder, but failure to send a reply indicates that some or all of the operations were executed. In both instances, the client SHOULD NOT retry the operation without addressing reply resource inadequacy. Such a retry can result in the same sort of error seen previously. Instead, it is best to consider the operation as completed unsuccessfully and report an error to the consumer who requested the RPC. In addition, within the error response, the requester does not have the result of the execution of the SEQUENCE operation, which identifies the session, slot, and sequence id for the request which has failed. The xid associated with the request, obtained from the rdma_xid field of the RDMA_ERROR or RDMA_MSG message, must be used to determine the session and slot for the request which failed, and the slot must be properly retired. If this is not done, the slot could be rendered permanently unavailable.

NFS version 4 client implementations often rely on a transport-layer keep-alive mechanism to detect when an NFS version 4 server has become unresponsive. When an NFS server is no longer responsive, client-side keep-alive terminates the connection, which in turn triggers reconnection and RPC retransmission. Some RDMA transports (such as Reliable Connections on InfiniBand) have no keep-alive mechanism. Without a disconnect or new RPC traffic, such connections can remain alive long after an NFS server has become unresponsive. Once an NFS client has consumed all available RPC-over-RDMA credits on that transport connection, it will forever await a reply before sending another RPC request. NFS version 4 clients SHOULD reserve one RPC-over-RDMA credit to use for periodic server or connection health assessment. This credit can be used to drive an RPC request on an otherwise idle connection, triggering either a quick affirmative server response or immediate connection termination.

RPC programs such as NFS are required to have an Upper Layer Binding specification to interoperate on RPC-over-RDMA transports . Via standards action, the Upper Layer Binding specified in this document can be extended to cover versions of the NFS version 4 protocol specified after NFS version 4 minor version 2, or separately published extensions to an existing NFS version 4 minor version, as described in .

NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional NFS port number assignment for networks that share traditional UDP and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP protocol is such an example (InfiniBand is not). NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 traditionally listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind service. However, requires NFS version 4 servers to listen on TCP port 2049, and they are not required to register. An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC-over-RDMA on such a network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC-over-RDMA service. The chosen port MAY be registered with the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in . An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC-over-RDMA on such a network MUST use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC-over-RDMA service. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFS version 4 on TCP transports). The port number assigned to an NFS service over an RPC-over-RDMA transport is available from the IANA port registry .

RPC-over-RDMA supports all RPC security models, including RPCSEC_GSS security and transport-level security . The choice of RDMA Read and RDMA Write to convey RPC argument and results does not affect this, since it changes only the method of data transfer. Specifically, the requirements of ensure that this choice does not introduce new vulnerabilities. Because this document defines only the binding of the NFS protocols atop , all relevant security considerations are therefore to be described at that layer.

Minor versions of NFSv4 newer than NFSv4.0 work best when ONC RPC transports can send Remote Procedure Call transactions in both directions on the same connection. This document describes how RPC- over-RDMA transport endpoints convey RPCs in both directions on a single connection. This document specifies a protocol for conveying Remote Procedure Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA). It requires no revision to application RPC protocols or the RPC protocol itself. This document obsoletes RFC 5666. This document describes the binding protocols used in conjunction with the ONC Remote Procedure Call (ONC RPC Version 2) protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK] In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This memo describes an ONC/RPC security flavor that allows RPC protocols to access the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface (referred to henceforth as GSS-API). [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the Network File System (NFS) version 4 minor version 1, including features retained from the base protocol (NFS version 4 minor version 0, which is specified in RFC 3530) and protocol extensions made subsequently. Major extensions introduced in NFS version 4 minor version 1 include Sessions, Directory Delegations, and parallel NFS (pNFS). NFS version 4 minor version 1 has no dependencies on NFS version 4 minor version 0, and it is considered a separate protocol. Thus, this document neither updates nor obsoletes RFC 3530. NFS minor version 1 is deemed superior to NFS minor version 0 with no loss of functionality, and its use is preferred over version 0. Both NFS minor versions 0 and 1 can be used simultaneously on the same network, between the same client and server. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Network File System (NFS) version 4 protocol is a distributed file system protocol that builds on the heritage of NFS protocol version 2 (RFC 1094) and version 3 (RFC 1813). Unlike earlier versions, the NFS version 4 protocol supports traditional file access while integrating support for file locking and the MOUNT protocol. In addition, support for strong security (and its negotiation), COMPOUND operations, client caching, and internationalization has been added. Of course, attention has been applied to making NFS version 4 operate well in an Internet environment. This document, together with the companion External Data Representation (XDR) description document, RFC 7531, obsoletes RFC 3530 as the definition of the NFS version 4 protocol. This document describes NFS version 4 minor version 2; it describes the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 minor version 1. Major extensions introduced in NFS version 4 minor version 2 include the following: Server-Side Copy, Application Input/Output (I/O) Advise, Space Reservations, Sparse Files, Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS. This document describes the rules relating to the extension of the NFSv4 family of protocols. It covers the creation of minor versions, the addition of optional features to existing minor versions, and the correction of flaws in features already published as Proposed Standards. The rules relating to the construction of minor versions and the interaction of minor version implementations that appear in this document supersede the minor versioning rules in RFC5661 and other RFCs defining minor versions. This RFC describes a protocol that Sun Microsystems, Inc., and others are using. A new version of the protocol is under development, but others may benefit from the descriptions of the current protocol, and discussion of some of the design issues. This paper describes the NFS version 3 protocol. This paper is provided so that people can write compatible implementations. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. This memo obsoletes RFC 1700 (STD 2) "Assigned Numbers", which contained an October 1994 snapshot of assigned Internet protocol parameters. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document defines a Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMAP) that operates over the Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP protocol). RDMAP provides read and write services directly to applications and enables data to be transferred directly into Upper Layer Protocol (ULP) Buffers without intermediate data copies. It also enables a kernel bypass implementation. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Direct Data Placement protocol provides information to Place the incoming data directly into an upper layer protocol's receive buffer without intermediate buffers. This removes excess CPU and memory utilization associated with transferring data through the intermediate buffers. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines the bindings of the various Network File System (NFS) versions to the Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) operations supported by the RPC/RDMA transport protocol. It describes the use of direct data placement by means of server-initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, 4, and 4.1 over such an RDMA transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Open Group This Technical Standard is aligned with Sun's NFS Version 3, and incorporates the Sun WebNFS™ extensions. The process of accessing remote files and directories as though they were part of the local file system hierarchy is commonly known as Transparent File Access (TFA). The most widely used heterogeneous TFS architecture is the Network File System (NFS), originally developed by Sun Microsytems. The Open Group XNFS offers a complete solution to transparent file access between open system-compliant systems, through the XNFS protocols for interoperability, and The Open Group XSI interfaces for application/user portability (as identified in several XNFS appendixes).

Corrections and updates made necessary by new language in have been introduced. For example, references to deprecated features of RPC-over-RDMA Version One, such as RDMA_MSGP, and the use of the Read list for handling RPC replies, have been removed. The term "mapping" has been replaced with the term "binding" or "Upper Layer Binding" throughout the document. Some material that duplicates what is in has been deleted. Material required by for Upper Layer Bindings that was not present in has been added, including discussion of how each NFS version properly estimates the maximum size of RPC replies. Technical corrections have been made. For example, the mention of 12KB and 36KB inline thresholds have been removed. The reference to a non-existant NFS version 4 SYMLINK operation has been replaced with NFS version 4 CREATE(NF4LNK). The discussion of NFS version 4 COMPOUND handling has been completed. Some changes were made to the algorithm for matching DDP-eligible results to Write chunks. Requirements to ignore extra Read or Write chunks have been removed from the NFS version 2 and 3 Upper Layer Binding, as they conflict with . A complete discussion of reply size estimation has been introduced for all protocols covered by the Upper Layer Bindings in this document. The following additional improvements have been made, relative to : An explicit discussion of NFS version 4.0 and NFS version 4.1 backchannel operation has replaced the previous treatment of callback operations. A binding for NFS version 4.2 has been added that includes discussion of new data-bearing operations like READ_PLUS. A section suggesting a mechanism for periodically assessing connection health has been introduced. Language inconsistent with or contradictory to has been removed from Sections 2 and 3, and both Sections have been combined into Section 2 in the present document. Ambiguous or erroneous uses of RFC2119 terms have been corrected. References to obsolete RFCs have been updated. An IANA Considerations Section has replaced the "Port Usage Considerations" Section. Code excerpts have been removed, and figures have been modernized.

The author gratefully acknowledges the work of Brent Callaghan and Tom Talpey on the original NFS Direct Data Placement specification . The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg Marsden for their support of this work. Dave Noveck provided excellent review, constructive suggestions, and consistent navigational guidance throughout the process of drafting this document. Dave also contributed the text of Thanks to Karen Deitke for her sharp observations about idempotency, and the clarity of the discussion of NFS COMPOUNDs. Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, nfsv4 Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler, and nfsv4 Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support.