On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 16:50 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd > > support for the AF_VSOCK address family. In order for this to be > > acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an > > IETF RFC. Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK. > > > > My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested. This draft > > RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus. > > > > I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv." Stream > orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and > VSOCK, not the reverse. But really I think it's just more clear. > Agreed. VSOCK is its own thing. It bears some resemblance to TCP, but calling it tcpv would be confusing. IIRC, Chuck only proposed that when we were discussing an alternative transport that would look more like a typical network. BTW: Does VSOCK have a connectionless mode, analogous to UDP? If so, then it may be nice to consider what the netid for that might look like as well, before we settle on any names. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
