Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49960 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbdJLM3P (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:29:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:08:14 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi To: Matt Benjamin Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List , NFSv4 Subject: Re: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Message-ID: <20171012120814.GB5957@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20171005200835.GA31525@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 04:50:55PM -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: > 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. Thanks. Will send the next revision properly formatted to the NFSv4 working group. Stefan