Subject: [nfsv4] Clarification and typo in draft-21 WANT_DELEGATION section 18.49

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:52:04 -0500

In section 18.49.3, 

   o  register a ...
      callbacks.  If the server does not support registration of wants
      it MUST NOT return an error to indicate that.  When the server
      indicates that it will notify the server by means of a callback,
      it will either provide the delegation using a CB_PUSH_DELEG
      operation, or cancel its promise by sending a CB_WANTS_CANCELLED
      operation.

I think that the MUST NOT clause should be clarified to explain how the
server should respond.    Perhaps,

"it MUST NOT return and error to indicate that, but instead MUST return
ond_why set to  WND4_RESOURCE and ond_server_will_signal_avail set to
false."

In the next sentence, the text should say "that it will notify the
client" (not server)?

In the text for 18.49.1, 

   union deleg_claim4 switch (open_claim_type4 dc_claim) {
   /*
    * No special rights to object. Ordinary delegation
    * request of the specified object. Object identified
    * by filehandle.
    */
   case CLAIM_FH: /* new to v4.1 */
           void;

shouldn't the CLAIM_FH case have the standard comment? I.e.

  /* CURRENT_FH: object being delegated */

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

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:42:46 -0700 (PDT)

> ond_why set to  WND4_RESOURCE and ond_server_will_signal_avail set to

I mostly agree, but WND4_RESOURCE isn't the only condition. Diffs 
attached.

> In the next sentence, the text should say "that it will notify the

Agreed.

>   /* CURRENT_FH: object being delegated */

Agreed.

Please indicate agreement or disagreement the attached diffs.

Index: nfsv41_middle_op_want_delegation.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/stdk/NFSv41/nfsv41_middle_op_want_delegation.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -r1.15 nfsv41_middle_op_want_delegation.xml
--- nfsv41_middle_op_want_delegation.xml	17 Dec 2007 22:17:39 -0000	1.15
+++ nfsv41_middle_op_want_delegation.xml	14 Mar 2008 01:38:03 -0000
@@ -31,7 +31,10 @@
        is available. The server MAY support notifications of
        availability via callbacks. If the server does not support
        registration of wants it MUST NOT return an error to indicate
-       that.  When the server indicates that it will notify the server
+       that, and instead MUST return ond_why set to WND4_CONTENTION or
+       WND4_RESOURCE and ond_server_will_push_deleg or
+       ond_server_will_signal_avail set to
+       FALSE.  When the server indicates that it will notify the client
        by means of a callback, it will either provide the delegation
        using a CB_PUSH_DELEG operation, or cancel its promise by
        sending a CB_WANTS_CANCELLED operation.
Index: dotx.d/want_delegation_args.x
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/stdk/NFSv41/dotx.d/want_delegation_args.x,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 want_delegation_args.x
--- dotx.d/want_delegation_args.x	19 Nov 2007 09:56:44 -0000	1.5
+++ dotx.d/want_delegation_args.x	14 Mar 2008 01:38:03 -0000
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
  * by filehandle.
  */
 case CLAIM_FH: /* new to v4.1 */
+	/* CURRENT_FH: object being delegated */
 	void;
 
 /*

---

From: Robert Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:58:55 -0500

i like it !

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:44:11 -0400

The diffs look good. Thanks. -Jason 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Mike Eisler
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Clarification and typo in draft-21
WANT_DELEGATIONsection 18.49

Agreed.

Agreed.