[Federated-fs] updated NSDB draft

[Everhart, Craig]

OK, thanks.  For the FSL contents, the lack of punctuation at the end of
what's clearly a sequence of sentences just made me think that the text
ended unnaturally there, e.g., by being cut off.

> The new text I'm proposing is:
> 
> ---
> 
>    Each FSL consists of:
> 
>    FslHost:  the fully qualified domain name of the host fileserver
>       storing the physical data
> 
>    FslPathname:  the exported pathname at that host fileserver
> 
>    FslUuid:  the 128-bit UUID of the FSL
> 
>    Type:  the protocol that should be used to access this FSL (e.g.
>       NFSv4)
> 
>    Currency:  the time lag of this FSL represented as the 
> number of time
>       units it lags the latest version as defined by the NFSv4.1
>       fs_locations_server's fls_currency field.  A currency value of 0
>       represents the latest version.  Currency values are less than or
>       equal to zero
> 
>    Annotations:  a list of name/value pairs that can be 
> interpreted by a
>       fileserver and used to generate a referral.  The 
> semantics of the
>       name/value pair is not defined by this protocol and is 
> intended to
>       be used by higher-level protocols.  This field MAY be used to
>       store the NFSv4.1 fl_locations_server's fls_info values
> 
> ---
> 
> The alternative would be to change the LDAP/LDIF to include 
> the fls_info field. 
> 
> > 
> > > +Internet-Draft   NSDB Protocol for Federated Filesystems  
> > > September 2008
> > > +
> > > +
> > >     from multiple non-root fileservers and chose to navigate the
> > >     namespace in any manner.  How the client discovers the root
> > >     fileserver(s), if one is defined, is not in the scope of the
> > 
> > Hm--I don't recall the text here, but it may want to point 
> to the DNS 
> > SRV draft.
> 
> This is a false positive. I'm not proposing any changes to this text. 
> It is showing up in the diff because my earlier changes moved 
> the root fileset text so that it spans a page. Hence diff 
> thinks I am adding the header and footer into this paragraph. 
> The text mentions the DNS SRV mechanism. Please let me know 
> if you have suggestions on how to improve it. Here is the 
> text as it is in the currently published
> draft:
> 
> ---
> 
> 3.6.  Federation Root FileServers
> 
>    A set of designated fileservers that render the common federation-
>    wide namespace are called the federation root fileservers.  The
>    federation protocol does not mandate that federation root 
> fileservers
>    be defined.  When a client mounts the root of the namespace from a
>    root fileserver it can traverse the entire federation-wide 
> namespace.
>    It is not required for a client to mount from one of the root
>    fileservers.  If a client mounts from a non-root fileserver then it
>    can traverse the part of the namespace that is visible 
> starting from
>    that fileserver.  A client can mount multiple individual filesets
>    from multiple non-root fileservers and chose to navigate the
>    namespace in any manner.  How the client discovers the root
>    fileserver(s), if one is defined, is not in the scope of the
>    federation protocol.  Numerous external techniques such as DNS SRV
>    records can be used for this.

Well, it's a false positive in the diff sense.  I was thinking that we
perhaps needed to make an actual change to refer to the DNS SRV work to
tie it into a package, but the existing text is OK for that until we get
a better sense from the WG.

Thanks.

		Craig