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

[Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>]

> On May 16, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Dr James Bruce Fields <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes - and perhaps a GETATTR in that compound