On 04/01/09 10:50, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:33:07PM -0700, Jarrett Lu wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:59:15PM -0700, Jarrett Lu wrote:
That's certainly one option. We can say DOI + an opaque field is what we
will add to NFSv4 protocol. Use the information as you see fit. Going
That's what David's I-D and what my RPCSEC_GSSv3 I-D both say now.
If we stop here, we don't have much of an interoperability story. I
I don't agree. We'd have the same interop story everyone has today
w.r.t. labeling: synchronization of policies is an out-of-band, manual
(automatable) task; no standard protocol nor policy description
language is specified.
I don't mean to dwell on this. Requiring either systems being identical
or relying on OOB information to know whether the opaque field can be
used sounds weak on interoperability. ;-)
I agree with you on rest of your comments. I still think more detailed
study on different use cases are needed to understand whether the
proposed solutions are suitable, sufficient, etc..
Jarrett
|
