Re: [nfsv4] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09

Joe Touch <> Thu, 25 May 2017 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E173912E037; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bku3iCcgjRk; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA1251293E0; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v4PIpDuT008458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 May 2017 11:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: Matthew Miller <>,
References: <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:51:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:51:42 -0000

Hi, all,

I'd like to add one point.

This doc gives guidance on creating minor versions, but never addresses
major versions.

IMO, past variants of NFS have not handled major version changes
appropriately. Each one has been assigned a new port number. This is no
longer recommended practice (see RFC7605, Sec 7.5).

Is this issue addressed in another document?

AFAICT, if (when) NFSv5 is developed, it seems to appear to need another
port number. If that's the case (and I sincerely hope it isn't), it MUST
be the last one assigned to this service.