From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 05/30/02-02:56:06 PM Z
Message-ID: <8C610D86AF6CD4119C9800B0D0499E336A8E2C@red.nane.netapp.com> From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com> Subject: RE: Why does CB_* require a return path? Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:56:06 -0700 Because I wasn't foresighted enough? Anyway it would be nice to fix this now (if only to save me from more embarassment as people keep asking about it). This isn't a case of "now or never" but since nobody has even proposed a start date for work on an NFS-v4.1, it is a case of "now or some time after 2005", which isn't very attractive either. My big concern with adding anything at this point is the workload for our editor, and the possiblity of delaying even further the new hopefully final Proposed Standard. This isn't a big thing but given where we are now, every little bit hurts. As a way of ameliorating this concern, could we have a volunteer (like Jim perhaps) who would come up with a set of precise spec updates (at essentially the level of diffs) ready to go in if there is consensus on this issue. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Rees [mailto:rees@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:09 PM To: nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: Why does CB_* require a return path? And it would be so easy to fix, for example by specifying that the reserved r_addr "--SOURCE--" means that callbacks should go back to the source. It's one thing to say that callbacks aren't required for proper operation, but to prohibit their use from behind a nat is a shame.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:49:46 AM Z CST