From: Nicolas Williams (Nicolas.Williams@sun.com)
Date: 02/06/03-11:56:50 AM Z
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:56:50 -0600 From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Subject: Re: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis-05 draft] Message-ID: <20030206115650.B18728@binky.central.sun.com> Perhaps there is a neat compromise: - RECOMMEND a normalization form to clients that they are responsible for using and converting to/from - RECOMMEND that the server enforce a normalization form ONLY for new filenames (creates/renames/links) This way the server can guarantee that the filesystem will contain only filenames with the proper normalization without having to perform normalization very often (only when files are created/renamed/linked with non-ASCII names), thus limiting the perf impact of doing normalization on the server, and the client is responsible for normalizing before doing LOOKUPs. (Multi-protocol servers may have to deal with normalization more generally, but that's a function of the protocols in question). Section 11.4 of the draft already specifies an error to make this possible. All that'd be needed is an I-D that hands down the two recommendations. Cheers, Nico On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:30:08AM -0800, Noveck, Dave wrote: ... > As to checking form C, it really doesn't make much difference > to me whether the spec requires the server to check it. Saying > that the client has to produce correct form C, but that the > server doesn't have to check it, with the client getting "weird" > results if he uses the wrong form, is not something that I > would be prepared to live with. I would wind up checking > the normalization rather than having to wonder, in any > internationalization situation in which something wierd > happened, whether a client with bad normalization was involved. ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-02:12:06 AM Z CST