Subject: Draft-02-02 posted

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:47:55 -0500

You will find that I have posted the next update to the draft at:
http://www.nfsv4.org/rfc3010updates/draft-02-02/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-02-02.txt

As usual you will find the overall draft's page at:
http://www.nfsv4.org/rfc3010updates/index.html

And the most recent issues list at:
http://www.nfsv4.org/rfc3010updates/issues.html

The issues resolved that did NOT change the specification are:

76, 111, 114, 115, 125, 189, 193, 202, 203, 213

The issues resolve that DID change the specification are:

42, 59, 64, 93, 129, 133, 136, 142, 165, 177, 178, 186, 187, 191, 192,
194, 210, 211, 212, 216, 217

-- 
Spencer

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:07:18 -0700

Section 14.2.10 (LOCK) of the latest I-D says

    Some servers may only support locking for byte offsets that fit
    within 32 bits.  If the client specifies a range that includes the
    last byte offset of the the 32-bit range, but does not include all
    of the byte offsets beyond it, up to the end of the valid 64-bit
    range, the error NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE will result.

This wording says that if the client submits any of the following lock
requests, the server must return NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE.

    (offset=0xffffffff, length=1)
    (offset=0xfffffffe, length=2)
    (offset=0, length=0xffffffff)

Why *must* the server (even a 32-bit server) return an error here?

mike

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:07:46 -0700

Section 14.2.10 (LOCK) of the latest I-D says that if the server
returns LOCK_RANGE, "it is up to the client to emulate the required
operations".  The client is still allowed to return an error to the
application, rather than emulating the operation, yes?

Section 14.2.11 (LOCKT) says "LOCKT will not return
NFS4ERR_LOCK_RANGE."  That sounds unnecessarily restrictive on the
server.  If possible, please change "will not" to "need not".

mike

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:39:33 -0500

> application, rather than emulating the operation, yes?

I read that text as allowing for the client to return an error instead
of attempting the emulation.  No use of the word MUST. :-)

> server.  If possible, please change "will not" to "need not".

It seems reasonable that the LOCKT operation should be symmetric to
LOCK.  Maybe Dave Noveck can offer an opinion here since he supplied
the text for these updates.

-- 
Spencer