Re: [nfsv4] 3530bis Issue 40: NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED trumps NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN

[Robert Thurlow <[e-mail]>]

Robert Thurlow wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> This is issue 40 from 
> http://github.com/loghyr/3530bis/blob/master/tasklist.txt.
> 
> In implementing NFSv4 migration support, we see a need to
> clarify what happens when a server is in a position to return
> both NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED and NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN, e.g. the
> server knows it cannot make a callback to the client and it
> knows the client is unaware of a migration event.
> 
> Our proposed wording change would require a server to hand
> out NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED first, since the scope of the
> condition involves another server which the client may
> not know about yet.  Also, if the client handles the
> NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN condition first by re-establishing the
> callback path, it can get a recall it cannot respond to since
> even DELEGRETURN will still fail with NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED.
> This appears to lead to trying to handle recovery while
> doing recovery, which does not seem good.
> 
> On the 3530bis call, some were not sure of the need to
> mandate an ordering.  If that is your position, please let
> us know why you don't agree with the above.

I don't think this has had a response.  If you disagree with
the wording change, now is the time to say so.

Rob T