Subject: Re: Upcoming draft-07 for NFSv4

From: Vern Paxson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:25:40 PDT

> In any case,  at this juncture (last iesg call),
> I think changing the wire formats is too much change for a spec that is in
> last call.

It really isn't - protocols can undergo significant change in last call.
In one case, the last call comment was "you need to return error information
rather than just yes/no", and (because it was clear the comment was on target)
that required revamping the whole spec.

		Vern

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT)

"Vern Paxson" <[email-masked]> writes:

> rather than just yes/no", and (because it was clear the comment was on
> target) that required revamping the whole spec.

My statement was unintentionally overbroad. Clearly if there was a bug in
protocol was found that required major revamping we'd have to deal with it. In
this case, I don't think we've found a bug, as Dave Noveck's counter example
shows, and so I prefer to not make unnecessary changes that might
have unforseen effects.

"David Robinson" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Are you implying that by not changing it, defers the change until after
> proposed standard but changing it for draft standard or it will
> stay this way forever?  If the former I don't like it but will not
> raise a stink, 

I'm saying that it will stay this way (no fh returned from OPEN) forever.
The notion of changing wire formats in incompatible ways between
Draft and Propose is more distasteful than doing so in last call.

At this point, I'm almost sorry I brought it up. :-(

	-mre