Subject: A possible conflict in draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:58:46 +0530

Looks to me a conflict in the section 8.4 of
"draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-05.txt".  The two statement (each enclosed
with *******) seems contrary in the context of "Blocking Locks".

   the client is requesting a blocking lock.  *****The server should
maintain
   an ordered list of pending blocking locks****.  When the conflicting
lock
   is released, the server may wait the lease period for the first
....
....
   likely to acquire the lock in a timely manner.  ******The server is not
   required to maintain a list of pending blocked locks as it is used to
   increase fairness and not correct operation******.  Because of the
...
...

Thanks!
Gaurav

---

From: David Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 22:09:00 -0600

>    increase fairness and not correct operation******.  Because of the

In IETF terminology, should is not a requirement, only a strong
recommendation and an implementor cannot assume that the action
will be performed as recommended.

Thus this is not a contradiction. A server might not maintain
a pending blocking lock list and would still be compliant, albeit
not fair.

	-David