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