> Although, I guess, you can put the restriction that the nfsv4 deployment > must point only to servers that can communicate to each other. This is exactly the requirement placed on AFS database servers btw. > > In any case putting the burden to check for synchronization on the > reader is certainly a much easier approach than trying to modify all > existing LDAP server implementations, unless you want to corner the > users of nfsv4 to be able to use only some specific implementation > potentially for many years. That is why I brought it up here! If major vendors (and it certainly sounds like it) don't like the idea it is dead in the water. Cheers Leif
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Ldapext mailing list Ldapext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext