From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 01/27/03-08:20:51 AM Z
Message-ID: <C8CF60CFC4D8A74E9945E32CF096548A072A4C@SILVER.nane.netapp.com> From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com> Subject: RE: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis- 05 draft] Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:20:51 -0800 I'm OK with C *provisionally*. Let me explain. I think one of the problems that we have had in this area is that we are too quick to agree to some of this stuff, before we understand the full implications. I believe this what happened when the stringprep went in. You can argue (endlessly) whether this was a good idea or not but I think it is clear that we did not really understand the implications. I think the reason was that most of us find this stuff really complicated and unpleasant and we'd rather just get it out of the way go on to talk about something else. Let's not repeat our mistake and settle on something until we have done enough implementation work to be sure that we are really OK with the implications in actual filesystems. So one question that we need to examine is our old friend linktext4. Are we saying that a server MUST reject creation of a symlink if it doesn't obey the rules of normalization form C, and if so, with what error? If not, are we saying that we should normalize to form C on readlink. And of course there is the issue of those existing symlinks on existing filesystems, even those that are encoded in UTF-8. If they don't match form C, should we fail (what error), normalize to C, or just the return the damn data? Enquiring minds want to know. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Rees [mailto:rees@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:02 AM To: nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis-05 draft] Form C sounds right to me. Is there free sample normalization code available somewhere? How about for the other forms?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:50 AM Z CST