[nfsv4] channel attribute negotiation

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> Sat, 09 October 2010 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bfields@fieldses.org>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E503A68A9 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.594
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ozbk-o-bA9br for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E133A6868 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bfields by fieldses.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bfields@fieldses.org>) id 1P4amb-00083r-F1 for nfsv4@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:21 -0400
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:52:20 -0400
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20101009145219.GB25224@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: [nfsv4] channel attribute negotiation
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:51:25 -0000

I noticed a couple small typos as I was reading the discussion of
channel attribute negotiation in 5661 section 18.36.3:

	- The heading of the dicussion should be
	  "csa_fore_chan_attrs, csa_back_chan_attrs:"
	  "csa_fore_chan_attrs, csa_fore_chan_attrs:"
	- "with more operations than ca_maxoperations" should be "with
	  more operations than the negotiatiated maximum".

Some clarification in the case of ca_maxoperations might be useful: is
the client expted to send a hopeful value (hey, let me send you
thousands of ops!) or the minimum value that it needs to function (e.g.
number of operations it requires to send its open compound)?  The linux
client currently does the latter.

The latter seems the more important number to communicate, so perhaps we
should advise clients to send their required minimum, and servers to
decrease the client-proivded number only with the understanding that
this may prevent the client from continuing.

I suppose it's not a terribly important question until we expect clients
to be capable of optimization or slection of optional features based on
the number of ops available.