> 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.