Re: [nfsv4] FedFS: Comment about fedfsFslPort

[James Lentini <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Robert Thurlow wrote:

> Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> > Thus there's no need for a separate FSL field to express a port value for
> > NFS referrals.  Regardless of whether 3530bis is changed as proposed, I
> > think we should remove the fedfsFslPort field, and leave that detail to the
> > subclasses of fedfsFsl where it is meaningful.
> 
> Agreed.

Removing the optional fedfsFslPort attribute from the fedfsFsl 
objectclass makes sense to me. Subclasses of fedfsFsl should include a 
port when necessary.

However, I believe that an NFS FSL should include a port attribute.

As defined in RFC 5661, NFSv4.1 allows for modified universal 
addresses to be included in a referral (see RFC 5661's definition of 
the fls_server field in Section 11.10.1).

As defined in Section 4.2.1.2 of 
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-11, the format of the 
fedfsFslHost attribute does not allow universal addresses or port 
values to be specified.

The combination of a fedfsFslHost and fedfsFslPort (renamed to be a 
fedfsNfsFslPort?) provide enough information to generate the modified 
universal addresses used in NFSv4.1 referrals.

-james