Chuck Lever wrote: > On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Howard Chu wrote: >> Michael Ströder wrote: >>> Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> We could also use an NFS URL, which would allow us to express the server >>>> hostname, a port number, and the pathname in a single string. But both the >>>> hostname and pathname are enocded in US-ASCII, not UTF-8, and the NFS URL >>>> format employs a fixed pathname separator character. >>> >>> That's what I would prefer. Think of file browsers which can open the NFS >>> mount point just by clicking on it. Same encoding steps as with file URLs. >> >> This seems the most obvious and natural solution (NFS URL). After all, you >> are >> specifying an NFS resource... > > I've looked more closely at this idea. While it's got some surface appeal, > NFS URLs (RFC 2224) don't specify a generic NFS resource. They specify a > webDAV like resource that can be accessed with NFS, called WebNFS (RFC > 2054, RFC 20550), which gives clients access via a so-called "public file > handle," which is a degenerate NFS FH. > > WebNFS is defined only for legacy versions of NFS, not for NFSv4. > Referrals are supported only in NFSv4. In fact, section 4 of RFC 2224 > specifies that clients try version 3 then version 2. NFS version 4 is not > discussed. > > Thus, the form of an NFS URL might be rich enough, but the existing > semantics are not equivalent.
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. Ciao, Michael.
