From: Trond Myklebust (trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no)
Date: 02/01/05-02:28:07 PM Z
Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning. From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:28:07 -0800 Message-Id: <1107289687.10493.132.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> ty den 01.02.2005 Klokka 14:30 (-0500) skreiv wurzl, mario: > Robert's proposal would allow a server to choose not to implement all the > features of a minor release. They can do that anyway: a recommended feature is by definition not mandatory to implement, and mechanisms already exist to allow clients to probe for it (minor number + NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP). Having an operation that allows for batch querying of supported operations only makes sense if we expect large numbers of features to be optional to implement (as opposed to just one or two operations). My impression was that minor versions add recommended features which are by and large supposed to be "on probation". In other words, they are expected to be strong candidates for "mandatory to implement" in newer versions of the protocol, else they will be dropped and/or replaced. A protocol with large numbers of optional features doesn't make sense from an interoperability perspective. Cheers, Trond -- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-02:13:52 AM Z CST