Re: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning.

Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:00:05 -0600
From: Robert Gordon <Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning.
Message-id: <a5e8d403e28a22073af40e47bf0b9f47@Sun.COM>

On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> 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).

And a client can continue to use that method if they so choose.

>
> 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).

It seems to make sense to me that with the result of one operation
the client can choose to craft the appropriate compound(s) to suite
the capabilities of the server.

> 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.
>

One thing i wanted to point out was Daves VERSION_INFO use of 'features'
as opposed to my use of 'operations'. I had read the RFC use of feature
and operation to mean the same thing (silly,i know).. Presumably a 
feature
would be something in the order of "pNFS", and claiming support for the
pNFS feature would imply that all operations required for that feature
are supported by the server.

Robert..

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