Skip to main content

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

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 steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2011-10-20)
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 steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-04)
   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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-05)
I agree with the concerns regarding the SRV record and the mount points.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-02-29)
Thank you for fixing the service name.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-06 for -12)
I've cleared my Discuss.  Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment points.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (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.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (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
   ...

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()