Hi Steven, It seems as if the natural interop scenarios with NFSv4 involve converting from a common (e.g., lfs) time representation. What am I missing?
Thanks, Matt ----- "Steven Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The RFC covers how AFS can be extended to provide for better > interoperability with Microsoft systems, but it does not discuss > interoperability with another key platform, NFSv4 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt). In particular, NFSv4 supports > timestamps at the nanosecond level of granularity. The difference > between the NFSv4 specification and the proposed RFC might cause > issues down the road and thus require this RFC to be revised; I would > prefer to see that revision done before the RFC is passed and > language > added to clarify how that interoperability might function. > > The core data type for NFSv4 time is as follows: > > nfstime4 > struct nfstime4 { > int64_t seconds; > uint32_t nseconds; > } > > > with an additional enum (time_how4) to designate whether client or > server time is being referenced. > > The seconds are the usual number of seconds since epoch, and the > nseconds is the offset based on the seconds in nanoseconds. If the > proposed draft is accepted, when converting to proposed AFS > timestamps > from NFSv4 timestamps, information would be lost. > -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
