Using DNS SRV to Specify a Global File Namespace with NFS Version 4
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-dns-srv-namespace-13
Discuss
Yes
(David Harrington)
(Martin Stiemerling)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2011-10-20)
Unknown
I do not understand why the document prohibits the use of DNS-SD to discover NFSv4 services. If I don't have a DNS server in my home network and I want to access information from a NFSv4 capable server, it should work, no?
David Harrington Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-04)
Unknown
The NFS version 4 protocol provides a natural way for a collection of NFS file servers to collaborate in providing an organization-wide file name space. I love "natural." Is that just using herbal essence, or do you also use crystals? --- Section 3 might be a bit more definitive. No need to "propose" things in a published RFC.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-05)
Unknown
I agree with the concerns regarding the SRV record and the mount points.
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-02-29)
Unknown
Thank you for fixing the service name.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-03-06 for -12)
Unknown
I've cleared my Discuss. Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment points.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-01-09 for -11)
Unknown
I'm moving my previous discuss point to a comment based on the most recent revision. The original discuss text was: >It's unusual to standardize a directory name in a host's filesystem namespace (see section 4.1). Has the IETF done this >before? Is it the right organization to establish this kind of convention? The change to the text was to remove 2119 keywords from section 4.1, but the text still reads as if it is trying to establish a standard behavior, not suggest a convention (and the edit has a grammar bug). Please consider s/is be used/could be used/. I support Peter's discuss.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-04)
Unknown
s4.2: r/recommended/RECOMMENDED in the following: As for the other attributes in fs_locations_info, the recommended approach is for a client to make its first possible contact with any ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown