IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] New version of sparse draft (draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt)

Spencer Shepler <sshepler@microsoft.com> Fri, 01 October 2010 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sshepler@microsoft.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 499883A6D35 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 03DqoqU-94df for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail2.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8713A6C2C for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:46:43 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC131.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.10.171]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:46:42 -0700
From: Spencer Shepler <sshepler@microsoft.com>
To: Marc Eshel <eshel@almaden.ibm.com>
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] New version of sparse draft (draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHLYY5xxjAzt76PckKsgQyzSMyi05MsXWbw
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:46:40 +0000
Message-ID: <E043D9D8EE3B5743B8B174A814FD584F0A651623@TK5EX14MBXC131.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4CA3CE95.10407@gmail.com> <E043D9D8EE3B5743B8B174A814FD584F0A64D38F@TK5EX14MBXC124.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4CA61A57.90205@almaden.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CA61A57.90205@almaden.ibm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E043D9D8EE3B5743B8B174A814FD584F0A651623TK5EX14MBXC131r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] New version of sparse draft (draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt)
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: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:46:01 -0000


From: Marc Eshel [mailto:eshel@almaden.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:29 AM
To: Spencer Shepler
Cc: Dean Hildebrand; nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] New version of sparse draft (draft-hildebrand-nfsv4-read-sparse-01.txt)

I can claim that trying to read unallocated part of the file is and error :) but I see the point of complicating the error handling.  We can instead just add more information to the reply without giving the error return code.
I think this a simple solution that should be agreed on as alternative if we don't have a more general solution that will cover the requirement for this one.
This is a good example how we this group start with simple ideas and ending up with a conflicted and convoluted protocol that drags for years.
We proposed it, I believe we got consensus. We can fine tune it to make every one happy. If someone has a better idea let them write a draft and if the group agrees that it is a solution we can switch to the new proposed draft.


You are correct, Marc.  As owner of a personal draft, there is no requirement
that input to the draft be accepted.  The owner can appropriately decline
the input and continue forward.  Competing I-Ds can be helpful in that
ideas are presented in fuller form beyond just the short feedback that
an email thread allows.

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email