Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Delegation for new open_owner

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:57:46 -0700

The problem I was worried about with opens that require
confirmation is that they may be unconfirmed, i.e. it may
turn out that the open really had a bad sequence, and so
should not have been done.  It seemed like asking for trouble
that it was worth to add a delegation which should not have 
been granted to an open which should not have been done.

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Delegation for new open_owner

On Fri, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > This can easily happen, since the server can't issue a 
> > > Delegation for any Open with a new open_owner.
> > > 
> > 
> > What do you mean? Delegations are per client and not per open_owners?
> I was just referring to Section 8.1.8, where it states that a delegation
> can't be issued if a Confirmation is required. (An open with a new
> open_owner requires Confirmation, so...)
> 
> Sorry for any confusion and thanks for the comments, rick

Maybe Dave N. can recap the scenarios he was thinking of when
suggesting the text about not providing delegations for an openowner
that needed confirmation. :-)

Spencer

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4