I'd like to see it as implementation-specific with an optional importer from the current format (storing info about source and updating when the source is)
Derrick On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]> wrote: > The syntax of the CellServDB file format [1] is well-known but is it a > standard from the perspective of this group? The answer to the question > will determine where discussion of replacing the file format should take > place. > > The current format is limited in what can be described and is > unfortunately interpreted differently depending upon the client or > server that is in use. > > For example: > > . servers only examine the IP addresses in the file > whereas the clients sometimes examine the IP address and > sometimes examine the DNS hostname > > . some clients treat a cell name followed by an empty > server list as an indication that DNS lookups should be > used and others do not > > . some clients understand server clones and some do not > > . some clients support linked cells and some do not > > Here is some of the new information that I think should be included in a > future replacement with per cell granularity: > > . dns = {always, prefer-dns, prefer-local, never} > > . default port values for afs services > > . optional IPv6 addressing > > . local Kerberos realm list > > . service specific configuration data > > . server specific data > > - default rank > > - clone status > > Should this discussion take place as a standard or should it be treated > as an implementation specific format? > > Jeffrey Altman > > > > [1] http://docs.openafs.org/Reference/5/CellServDB.html > _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
