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