On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 19:12 -0500, Tom Haynes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50:36AM -0400, peter.staubach@xxxxxxx wrote: > > It does talk about NFS over UDP, interestingly, but the text on page 25, indicates that the transport of choice MUST be one of the IETF-approved congestion control transport protocols, of which, UDP is not one. > > > > Perhaps some clean up of RFC3530bis and RFC5661 could include removal of the UDP mentions. > > The text in 3530bis could be made to match that in 5661: > > It is permissible for a connectionless transport to be used under > NFSv4.1; however, reliable and in-order delivery of data combined > with congestion control by the connectionless transport is REQUIRED. > As a consequence, UDP by itself MUST NOT be used as an NFSv4.1 > transport. NFSv4.1 assumes that a client transport address and > server transport address used to send data over a transport together > constitute a connection, even if the underlying transport eschews the > concept of a connection. > > But as we can see 5661 is very strong. I think Peter is referring to the text in section 2.2 and section 17.2 which describes the format for netids and universal addresses specifically for the UDP case. I agree with Peter's suggestion that we should just delete that text. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- 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
