Re: [nfsv4] Current implementation status of NFSv4.1

Spencer Shepler <> Tue, 19 October 2010 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7803A6909 for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k75kvK5a360q for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA033A68C2 for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:07:02 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0255.003; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:07:02 -0700
From: Spencer Shepler <>
To: Thomas Haynes <>
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] Current implementation status of NFSv4.1
Thread-Index: Actu/83Ct4Pao8iEToO3K+G6bhr2MAAQo4eAAA3NNAAAADsrgAANRB6A
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:07:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E043D9D8EE3B5743B8B174A814FD584F0C9AA8F9TK5EX14MBXC131r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Current implementation status of NFSv4.1
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:05:43 -0000


It appears that a good portion of agenda (half?) will be
dedicated to proposals targeted towards NFSv4.x.

I appreciate the desire to discuss NFSv4.2 and we should
but what exactly is to be covered in that slot if not proposals
for functionality?   As I have suggested about other topics,
we should do our best to start a discussion here on the WG alias
and then close or move those discussions forward dramatically
at the WG meeting.

Said another way, I want content behind agenda items and
this includes the NFSv4.2 discussion.  If there isn't predetermined
content then the item will be pushed to the end of agenda
with little time.

btw: I will be posting an updated agenda later today.


From: Thomas Haynes []
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:44 PM
To: Spencer Shepler
Cc: William A. (Andy) Adamson;
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Current implementation status of NFSv4.1

On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Spencer Shepler wrote:

I'd be willing to give a Linux implementation status.  How long a time
slot were you thinking of?

Interestingly, I didn't have a duration in mind -- if there is material
to cover that would be helpful in moving our work forward, we will
make time for it.


Could we put it at the end of the agenda, after the 4.2 discussion?

I.e., I was unhappy that the 4.2 discussion fell off of the end in Maastricht.