Re: [nfsv4] IETF 102 nfsv4 WG meeting go/no-go

[Dr James Bruce Fields <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:10:54PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:26, J. Bruce Fields <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:18:01AM -0700, Tom Haynes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On May 7, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/
> > > >
> > > > Says the cut-off for requesting a meeting room is June 1, 2018.
> > > >
> > > > I can think of a few agenda topics that are relevant at this time:
> > > >
> > > > - Tom/Trond have some virtualization-related extensions and other
> protocol fixups
> > >
> > > draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid-00 <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haynes-nfsv4-delstid/>
> 
> > What's the motivation for WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION?
> 
> 
> What's the motivation for asking for a delegation _and_ an open stateid?
> That means you have to return 2 objects instead of just one.
> 
> The WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION  option authorises the server to return a
> delegation without the open stateid, which cuts down on the amount of
> traffic between the client and server. Yes, you could just ask for a
> delegation using WANT_DELEGATION, but if the server is unable to hand one
> out, it will return an error, and you're back to sending an OPEN..

Got it, thanks.  So the traffic saved is one unnecessary CLOSE (in the
case the server returns a delegation)?

--b.