Chuck Lever wrote: > On Aug 9, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Howard Chu wrote: > >> Michael Ströder wrote: >>> I see no reason why it should not be able to use NFS URLs and define the exact >>> usage of them for NFSv4. Maybe I'm overlooking something though. >> >> Agreed. AFAICS the semantics of the URL are for your actual application to >> define. We're not talking about URLs that are meant to be served up by an HTTP >> server. >> >> IMO RFC2224 is defective in that it specifies both the URL format and its >> associated access methods. URL formats are meant to be "Uniform" which should >> mean they are independent of their access methods. > > In order to use the NFS URL format, I think we would be compelled to > correct RFC 2224, probably by issuing an RFC that supersedes it. Why? You could simply use the URL syntax defined in RFC 2224, section 1 (maybe redefine it in your own draft) and ignore the WebNFS-related rest of RFC 2224 if it does not fit your needs. Maybe some things from section 6 could be also considered. But personally I'm not familiar with NFS.. The exact semantics how to use the NFS URLs with NFSv4 should be defined in your NFSv4 drafts then. Ciao, Michael.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature