Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:47884 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbdJEUu5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:50:57 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id m201so9182811iom.4 for ; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:50:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171005200835.GA31525@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20171005200835.GA31525@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Matt Benjamin Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:50:55 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List , Jeff Layton , "J . Bruce Fields" , Chuck Lever , Steve Dickson , Anna Schumaker , Trond Myklebust , Daniel Berrange , NFSv4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Stefan, On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd > support for the AF_VSOCK address family. In order for this to be > acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an > IETF RFC. Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK. > > My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested. This draft > RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus. > I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv." Stream orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and VSOCK, not the reverse. But really I think it's just more clear. I think this draft needs to be sent to the IETF NFSv4 working group alias, nfsv4@ietf.org. Matt -- Matt Benjamin Red Hat, Inc. 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage tel. 734-821-5101 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309