From: Stevan Steve Allen (scallen@us.ibm.com)
Date: 01/23/03-02:24:54 PM Z
Subject: Fw: NFSv4 Advisory vs. Mandatory locking issues
Message-ID: <OFC933542D.13F8FC5A-ON88256CB7.006846EE-88256CB7.007024A8@us.ibm.com>
From: Stevan Steve Allen <scallen@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:24:54 -0800
David wrote:
>> The NFSv4 protocol does not support or restrict the use of nonstandard
NFS
>> implementations to satisfy customer solutions.
>
>As a clarification, nonstandard implementations are by definition
>not "NFSv4" and should not be called NFSv4. This is a common
>confusion in the IETF, if you use the term NFSv4 it is
>standards conforming, anything else should have it's own
>name (e.g. Bob's FS). Otherwise there is no way to distinguish
>between an implementation that has changed just one required
>feature and another that is loosely based on NFSv4 (think DAFS).
This is the area I'm unfamiliar with and appreciate your responses.
I support the IETF/WG need to draw the line and define boundaries. From
the
protocol perspective, the only real "NFS" server product are those that
support all the procedures and provide the expected results outlined in
the draft. Nothing more, nothing less.
Where we got into trouble is certain platforms may not be able to support a
particular NFS draft item and therefore implemented a failure type
restriction "I can't do that" which is not defined in the protocol. An
example would be a server not able to support delegation for reasons
entirely
of it's own, or not support file share semantics.
The problem is deciding if this product can still be labeled NFS, or
does IETF/WG not accept this as an NFS product because of the restriction.
The answer of not NFS may affect the goal of NFS acceptance and
availability.
It seems like we are at a point where restrictive offerings may call
themselves NFS without anyone forcing them to change their name to Bob's
FS.
Even though by protocol definition they are not NFS due to their
restrictive
nature. I'm only describing restricting function, not adding additional
function.
What are the ramifications of incorporating non-NFS restrictions to satisfy
platform limitations or limitations to support customer requirements and
labeling your product as NFS?
The problem
in defining "NFS" products
-David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:48 AM Z CST