Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09

[David Noveck <davenoveck@xxxxxxxxx>]

> This doc gives guidance on creating minor versions, but never addresses
> major versions.

I think we had enough to do addressing minor versions and didn't want to

speculate about a possible v5.  after all, we're the nfsv4 working group

and not the nfsvn working group.

> IMO, past variants of NFS have not handled major version changes
> appropriately. Each one has been assigned a new port number. This is no
> longer recommended practice (see RFC7605, Sec 7.5).


Makes sense.

> Is this issue addressed in another document?

I don't think so.

> AFAICT, if (when) NFSv5 is developed, it seems to appear to need another
> port number. 

I don't see why it would.  If there is another Rpc version of the NFS program,

I don't see why the appropriate negotiation could be defined.  I think doing\

that would be up to those defining nfsv5.

> If that's the case (and I sincerely hope it isn't), it MUST
> be the last one assigned to this service.

I don't think "MUST" is appropriate in this case but I would say that assigning 

another port would be a DAMN SHAME.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi, all,

I'd like to add one point.

This doc gives guidance on creating minor versions, but never addresses
major versions.

IMO, past variants of NFS have not handled major version changes
appropriately. Each one has been assigned a new port number. This is no
longer recommended practice (see RFC7605, Sec 7.5).

Is this issue addressed in another document?

AFAICT, if (when) NFSv5 is developed, it seems to appear to need another
port number. If that's the case (and I sincerely hope it isn't), it MUST
be the last one assigned to this service.

Joe