[nfsv4] comparison of seqid

<albert.guo@emc.com> Mon, 22 November 2010 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.guo@emc.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 6EA963A6A4A for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:09:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hk10cNNzbW05 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A4A3A6A7A for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id oAMDAHm4032299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:10:18 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.251]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:10:13 -0500
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.196]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id oAMD94cc019295 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:09:04 -0500
Received: from mxhub08.corp.emc.com ([128.221.46.116]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:09:04 -0500
Received: from mxhub16.corp.emc.com (128.221.56.105) by mxhub08.corp.emc.com (128.221.46.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:09:03 -0500
Received: from mx09a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.77]) by mxhub16.corp.emc.com ([128.221.56.105]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:09:03 -0500
From: albert.guo@emc.com
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:04:58 -0500
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] comparison of seqid
Thread-Index: AcuKRd1QrlOmh0ORScaDJBGmcRpp4Q==
Message-ID: <EA7FBAA54489FB41B1DF6741FBD98B4101FBF0FE32@MX09A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EA7FBAA54489FB41B1DF6741FBD98B4101FBF0FE32MX09Acorpemcc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2010 13:09:04.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[70209B40:01CB8A46]
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
X-EMM-MFVC: 1
Subject: [nfsv4] comparison of seqid
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: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:09:27 -0000

Hi, all
On page 161 of RFC 5661, I found the following description about comparison of seqid:
"In making comparisons between seqids, both by the client in
determining the order of operations and by the server in determining
whether the NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID is to be returned, the possibility of
the seqid being swapped around past the NFS4_UINT32_MAX value needs
to be taken into account. When two seqid values are being compared,
the total count of slots for all sessions associated with the current
client is used to do this. When one seqid value is less than this
total slot count and another seqid value is greater than
NFS4_UINT32_MAX minus the total slot count, the former is to be
treated as lower than the latter, despite the fact that it is
numerically greater."
It looks to me the last sentence expresses a contrary meaning.
the "lower than" should be "higher than"
the "greater" should be "smaller"

Is it my misunderstanding or a bug in the spec?


--
Albert