From: Robert Gordon (Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM)
Date: 02/01/05-04:38:31 PM Z
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:38:31 -0600 From: Robert Gordon <Robert.Gordon@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Minor Versioning. Message-id: <4cba94987b614c51d605ee45c1c29010@Sun.COM> On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Mike Eisler wrote: > For what is worth, many years ago, we had similar discussion about > minor version and asking the server for a detailed description of > what it supported, and the discussion was no less lively or > contentious. I think we came to Trond's conclusion: > > > A protocol with large numbers of optional features doesn't make sense > > from an interoperability perspective. > I don't think that anyone would disagree with that conclusion. However, the RFC as it currently stands does not allow a mandatory feature be introduced in a minor version.. of course a minor version can alter that definition... and it also does not allow the alteration of an existing operation.. which "rules out" the modification of OP "2" ... (this tar baby is very sticky i need Gin, stat!) Robert... _______________________________________________ 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