IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] draft-quigley-nfsv4-labeled-00 - some comments

Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com> Thu, 07 April 2011 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708F928C177 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBv4rMazvkDW for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D192D28C178 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,319,1299484800"; d="scan'208";a="539854834"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2011 15:01:33 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.27]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p37M1Vfc010097; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.115]) by sacrsexc1-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:01:32 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.111]) by rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:01:31 -0400
Received: from ebc05-xp.hq.netapp.com ([10.58.57.65]) by RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:01:30 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTims7h348Eh4VuXFHC1jUmKRnGdF+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:01:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <04B7B7A7-2364-4D1E-99BA-211756DD6B38@netapp.com>
References: <4D95842E.70708@oracle.com> <4D95B41C.70509@oracle.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E03E5EF1DC2@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4D9DBC25.7000409@oracle.com> <BANLkTinQ+qtGOeW=_MQbOiCUWdRiPg70hw@mail.gmail.com> <4D9DEAF3.2050000@oracle.com> <BANLkTi=_=cdXG-LNTTAkg9Hyr+kj2q0DMQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D9DF43E.8070100@oracle.com> <BANLkTinCPpyU4bKca-oknxFZZfgwOcbgSQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D9DFF63.7020002@oracle.com> <BANLkTikiCPm=BOyk-myUNJUkfin6X=Xh6g@mail.gmail.com> <4D9E30B7.3000004@oracle.com> <B2AE4F8E-992F-469C-9418-1ED1DF317322@netapp.com> <BANLkTims7h348Eh4VuXFHC1jUmKRnGdF+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2011 22:01:30.0547 (UTC) FILETIME=[59B61030:01CBF56F]
Cc: jarrett.lu@oracle.com, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] draft-quigley-nfsv4-labeled-00 - some comments
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:59:49 -0000

On Apr 7, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Nico Williams wrote:

> 
> I am now more confused than ever :)  So, the train model is NOT
> exclusive?  I.e., there can be work items that are part of a minor
> version train and others that progress outside the train?

RPCSEC_GSS has never been a part of NFS.

What I mean by this is that these are two distinct protocols. We
do not want to produce one document that introduces changes
to both of them.

The NFSv4.2 spec will have a normative reference to RPCSEC_GSSv3,
just like 5661had these:

   [4]   Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
         Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.

   [12]  Eisler, M., "RPCSEC_GSS Version 2", RFC 5403, February 2009.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email