[pnfs] CAT (connect-a-thon) Draft-19 ?

[Benny Halevy]

On Apr. 29, 2008, 22:58 +0300, Robert Gordon <Robert.Gordon at sun.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Benny Halevy wrote:
> 
>> On Apr. 23, 2008, 4:10 +0300, Robert Gordon <Robert.Gordon at Sun.COM>  
>> wrote:
>>> We're assuming that everyone will be testing using the
>>> draft-19 dot x-file...  It's a silly question, i know..
>>>
>>> Robert..
>> We're practically at draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-04.txt
>> (corresponding to draft-21).
>> Your question is a bit tricky because the actual dot-x differences
>> between draft-19 and draft-21 are quite subtle...
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-04.txt
>>
>> Shows these meaningful changes:
>>
>> a. struct devlist_item4, which was already stale in draft-19's dot-x  
>> file,
>>   was removed.
>>
>> b. bool fss_absent; added to struct fs4_status.
>>   and that's referrals specific and was not implemented yet here.
> 
> Same here..
> 
>>
>> c. SEQ4_STATUS_DEVID_DELETED_ALL flag was removed from the protocol.
>>   We haven't implemented this yet.
>>
>> The question that most interests me right now is how people are  
>> going to
>> implement layout stateid, draft-19 or draft-21 (+ Spencer's latest  
>> text) style.
>> In particular, usage of zero stateid and lrs_present on LAYOUTRETURN  
>> response
>> for the last layout segment.
> 
> I had hoped that i would be at a point of handing out and checking  
> 'real' layout stateids,
> however i don't believe that will be in place for connect-a-thon.   
> State "management"
> will behave (or misbehave :) ) per the BAT here in austin..

OK. Then let's defer the "real" layout stateid interop testing to the
next BAT.

Benny

> 
> Robert..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pNFS mailing list
> pNFS at linux-nfs.org
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs