IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Possible errata in 5661

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Mon, 28 November 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDA912950B for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id htJFGzPhcLCk for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 598A2129492 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w63so163679606oiw.0 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XR+yBH1AgBAuxCThJ48Y0OQX2P4IdPDAdCEHOaAew/E=; b=sx/v2eMXoyfRi70tGxBSXcvNuUTIyPW6i9g8TAMY9N9mQVDSH/WdJo5xDnicPSvWtt Crf+fVyO9y9KQDBeSdGvaxhqAxiQ1WSnItI/T6vIHvLI0MUHQESJ2/8ZsqHrd6lCKJPt 4D3pNbAktQW8IwgB99DG2IbZIdBZgGWcokYZ4muulEG8jfqyuTRzI+MmxupuBe5Vtb9S C6Uto6hGg1d+0hrSVw9HFCb0EYES99LuEIKHUHJ6TYCJcvi/U8wmvoH4/gso2XGG26Il 1u410gw3pt3gf8zppdORIY2m/ilXDFSmr+JfxCUxwcKOR/9YlavshAcGqXWcxe71k+bN zOrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XR+yBH1AgBAuxCThJ48Y0OQX2P4IdPDAdCEHOaAew/E=; b=D0EN1Pl6pe3BbASC+s9pNs316GXV8I+1GVsFEd0jyYln9pkrAT/hPqW0Uwt6DV+LpZ iDvVNYkvfAw5I7ciapiXD3ZnEirYhMlMYBi1wMwmStpLxwd7/b1rN3CoytwGFprfFEGo vQGRHOyHcXXrZCTr+x9mUpX0uA08VUtEOkpr2TZStC44Ibj3Czh76GoazovWWfidXYVk VeqfcXOzOShzM57JfaJkrumbFbMgLMqLU21VaoE8ZN9KE/YKhQMzcJSzaBi8IjisA1lH VJ1Rl4MgAeVb3456sTmllaDacbi5fa63NKsy/wDpqoIsVI2k95N6LU9nTRIQxKmWCWeY z/iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01DdddlYOo0GdTFvZYMdTv3k5CG5KYvxXLNkWeRMy1X7DlLJs+GXbfNfz6f93tueeEV7aRfeRTxHhWMqA==
X-Received: by 10.157.11.14 with SMTP id a14mr14120418ota.185.1480361508686; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.168.4 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7B6C1BD0-9E45-4A9F-85EF-AB6A2D3ADA14@primarydata.com>
References: <7B6C1BD0-9E45-4A9F-85EF-AB6A2D3ADA14@primarydata.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:31:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdVPkq97E59+gad8OTQJvS+M3Wsc_ri9dqwVuWtKxp+vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113db650dd54c60542618557"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/65kZsB-22O-GFvdpuCIk4XU3iF8>
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Possible errata in 5661
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:31:56 -0000

Yes.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>
wrote:

> Shepler, et al.              Standards Track                  [Page 205]
> ^L
> RFC 5661                         NFSv4.1                    January 2010
>
>
>    OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegations may be outstanding simultaneously and
>    do not conflict.  An OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation allows the client
>    to handle, on its own, all opens.  Only OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE
>    delegation may exist for a given file at a given time, and it is
>    inconsistent with any OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegations.
>
>
> That should be “Only one OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE”, right?
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email