Re: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning.

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Robert Gordon (Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM)
Date: 01/31/05-07:25:00 PM Z


Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:25:00 -0600
From: Robert Gordon <Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning.
Message-id: <637e33f85c8790cdf99b57ef3636b50f@sun.com>


On Jan 31, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> må den 31.01.2005 Klokka 17:22 (-0600) skreiv Robert Gordon:
>> I've been pondering the following :-
>> 	 a server may advertise support for a minor version but may not
>> 	(if the feature is classified as recommended) actually implement
>> 	one (or any) of the 'minor version' features.
>>
>> It has occurred to me that in 4.1 we should recommend a mechanism to
>> query the server of it's capabilities and then make that mechanism
>> mandatory in 4.2; This way it should be easy for a client to figure
>> out if a server can handle sessions, pnfs etc...
>
> Why is the existing NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP insufficient for these purposes?

The proposal allows for a succinct up-front mechanism to ascertain
the operations supported by the server in one round-trip. One could
also figure out the minor versions supported by the server if the
supported operations in the reply was zero.

I don't see how one could achieve the same with NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP,
maybe i'm missing something..

--
Robert.. 

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-02:13:51 AM Z CST