Using DNS SRV to Specify a Global File Namespace with NFS Version 4
RFC 6641

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Discuss

Discuss (2011-10-20 for -)
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?
Comment (2011-10-20 for -)
I'm not sure why the mount point conventions are needed.

(David Harrington) Yes

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-06 for -12)
I've cleared my Discuss.  Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment points.

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-04 for -)
   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


Section 3 might be a bit more definitive. No need to "propose" things in
a published RFC.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-05 for -)
I agree with the concerns regarding the SRV record and the mount points.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-02-29)
Thank you for fixing the service name.

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-01-09 for -11)
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.

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-04)
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