You should trust Tom Talpey's opinion on this. He was directly involved 25 years ago when sessions were invented in DAFS and then transferred into the NFSv4.1 protocol. > Until the spec is clarified I think it is safest to be cautious. The usual line we draw for adding code/features/complexity is the proposer must demonstrate a use case for it. So far I have not seen a client implementation that needs a server to remember the sequence number in a slot that has been shrunken and then re-activated. Will this dead slot be subject to being freed by the session shrinker? But the proposed implementation accepts 1 in this case, and it doesn't seem tremendously difficult to remove the "remember the seqid" mechanism once it has been codified to everyone's satisfaction. So I won't belabor the point. -- Chuck Lever
