On Sat, 07 Dec 2024, Chuck Lever wrote: > Hi Roland, thanks for posting. > > Here are some initial review comments to get the ball rolling. > > > On 12/6/24 5:54 AM, Roland Mainz wrote: > > Hi! > > > > ---- > > > > Below (and also available at https://nrubsig.kpaste.net/b37) is a > > patch which adds support for nfs://-URLs in mount.nfs4, as alternative > > to the traditional hostname:/path+-o port=<tcp-port> notation. > > > > * Main advantages are: > > - Single-line notation with the familiar URL syntax, which includes > > hostname, path *AND* TCP port number (last one is a common generator > > of *PAIN* with ISPs) in ONE string > > - Support for non-ASCII mount points, e.g. paths with CJKV (Chinese, > > s/mount points/export paths > > (When/if you need to repost, you should move this introductory text into > a cover letter.) > > > > Japanese, ...) characters, which is typically a big problem if you try > > to transfer such mount point information across email/chat/clipboard > > etc., which tends to mangle such characters to death (e.g. > > transliteration, adding of ZWSP or just '?'). > > - URL parameters are supported, providing support for future extensions > > IMO, any support for URL parameters should be dropped from this > patch and then added later when we know what the parameters look > like. Generally, we avoid adding extra code until we have actual > use cases. Keeps things simple and reduces technical debt and dead > code. > > > > * Notes: > > - Similar support for nfs://-URLs exists in other NFSv4.* > > implementations, including Illumos, Windows ms-nfs41-client, > > sahlberg/libnfs, ... > > The key here is that this proposal is implementing a /standard/ > (RFC 2224). Actually it isn't. You have already discussed the pub/root filehandle difference. The RFC doesn't know about v4. The RFC explicitly isn't a standard. So I wonder if this is the right approach to solve the need. What is the needed? Part of it seems to be non-ascii host names. Shouldn't we fix that for the existing syntax? What are the barriers? Part seems to be the inclusion of the port number. Is a "URL" really the best way to solve that need? Mount.nfs currently expects ":/" to separate host name from path. I think host:port:/path would be unambiguous providing "port" did not start "/". Do we really need the % encoding that the URL syntax gives us? If so - why? NeilBrown
