Subject: RE: Issue 76 (domain name equivalence)

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:41:12 -0700

This sounds to me like an excellent thing to do.  On the other
hand, I wouldn't like us to hold up the spec for it.

At one time, there was the idea of the "Implementation RFC" for
stuff like this, but as it has taken longer and longer to get the
spec out, the implementation RFC has receded into the distance
(several mega-parsecs at least).

Maybe the implementation RFC approach is too formal for what we
need.  It is not as if we expect that at some future time we will
arrive at a fixed and unchanging corpus of NFS-v4 impleemntation
advice.

Can we do something web-based that will get the information in a
reasonable form that people can use? (If it were a couple of years 
ago we could have written a business plan and gotten a few million
bucks to develop nfsv4-implementation.com :-).   At the simplest 
level, a web page with a list of topics, that pointed to e-mail
messages in the archive, could provide a lot of useful information,
plus there would the ability to query the authors of the various
items and get a lot of useful general discussion.  Wouldn't that
be better for the purpose than an RFC, plus we can start small
and build it incrementally.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Issue 76 (domain name equivalence)

This is in your "what's the issue?" list.

I believe this has to do with a situation we've run into inside Sun,
where users can have equivalent logins in different DNS domains (e.g.,
[email-masked] is the same person as [email-masked], and
in a couple months will be the same as [email-masked]).  The
Solaris v4 implementors tossed around a couple approaches to make this
easier to manage, and I think the issue is to get some of these ideas
onto paper for the benefit of other implementors.

mike

---

From: Brent Callaghan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:55:39 -0700

"Noveck, Dave" wrote:
> ...

Sounds like a good idea, though it would need an editor to index
it and maintain in a digestible form.  Are there any other groups
that have done something similar ?  For example, TCP stack implementation ?

	Brent