Subject: [nfsv4] Delegations and named attributes

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:41:53 -0500

I'm addressing issue 24 in the issue tracker.  As I mentioned in an
earlier email, we need to address the issue of the interaction of named
attributes and delegations.  This wasn't specifically addressed in
RFC3530.
 
For now, I'm going under the assumption that named attributes will be
treated like other attributes for the purposes of delegations and
associated with the the file they are attributes for.  This would mean
no delegations on specific named attributes and no directory delegations
on named attribute directories.  I think that named attributes will
often be needed by the delegate and it is unreasonable to ask that
client to get an additional set of delegations ot be assured they will
not change.
 
I'm going to address issue 24 on this basis, but if people have other
ideas about this, let me know and I will change things.  I just need
some assumption to work on to address the changes in the spec for now.
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Trond Myklebust <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:21:51 -0500

On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:41 -0500, Noveck, Dave wrote:
> earlier email, we need to address the issue of the interaction of
> named attributes and delegations.  This wasn't specifically addressed
> in RFC3530.
>  
> no delegations on specific named attributes and no directory
> delegations on named attribute directories.  I think that named
> attributes will often be needed by the delegate and it is unreasonable
> to ask that client to get an additional set of delegations ot be
> assured they will not change.
>  

I've always been under the assumption that the converse was true: that
your file delegation does not cover the named attributes. After all,
they live in a separate subdirectory, so we'd have to define semantics
for directory read delegations for RFC3530, and write delegation
semantics for both RFC3530 and the draft 4.1 spec. I was under the
impression that we don't want to do that...

Cheers
  Trond

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:11:45 -0600

> impression that we don't want to do that...

I agree with Trond.  Named attributes are OPENed and have a separate
filehandle therefore the regular file delegation model works well
for separate delegations for named attributes from the "parent" file.

Spencer

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:28 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trond Myklebust [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:22 AM
> To: Noveck, Dave
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Delegations and named attributes
> 
> 
Our interpretation has been similar to Trond's
Mario

---

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:21:23 -0500

If that's the consensus, I'll make the spec changes on that basis.  It's
easier to document, wording-wise. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:21 PM
To: [email-masked]; Noveck, Dave
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Delegations and named attributes

> impression that we don't want to do that...
Our interpretation has been similar to Trond's Mario

---

From: Benny Halevy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:08:13 +0200

> easier to document, wording-wise. 

My interpretation was similar so you can add me too to the consensus.

Benny