On 08/03/2010 06:42 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 17:57 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: >>>>> Daniel.Muntz@xxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'll fourth this motion. The spec goes out of its way to declare this a >>>>> violation. IMHO, the NFSv4.[0-n] specs should adopt the convention that a >>>>> uid string consisting of [0-9]+ be interpreted as the string >>>>> representation of a numeric UID--just as valid as a "user@domain" string. >>>>> >>>>> I argued for this as an option in the early days but was shouted down. >>>>> Sorry I can't remember the details, it was many years ago. >>>> >>>> Why is nobody talking about fixing AUTH_SYS? The alternative to using >>>> numeric uids/gids in NFS would be to use user@domain/group@domain in the >>>> credential. >>> >>> I'm not sure what that does to address complaints like original >>> poster's: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=128080127215350&w=2 >>> >>> And I'd like it to be possible to make the NFSv3->NFSv4 upgrade as >>> transparent as possible. >> >> 1) RFC3530 does allow a workaround for cases where the _server_ doesn't >> have a mapping from uid/gid -> name. We just haven't implemented it on >> Linux servers (or clients). > > Yeah, somebody should. I'm assuming you are talking about in the about page 47, third paragraph that starts with "To provide a greater degree of compatibility..." or are you referring to a different part of the RFC? steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
