Subject: Re: New submission: RFS
To: None <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/19/1999 23:18:52
From a slightly nostalgic point of view I'm somewhat purturbed that
another stateful remote file sharing protocol would try to take over the
acronym "RFS".  :-)

However even AT&T's original RFS would still need some major overhaul in
order to work well on a modern BSD, so I'm only lightly suggesting that
the name "RFS" be reserved for it or something like it (i.e. a stateful
remote file sharing protocol that preserved "Unix" filesystem semantics).

For example the SunOS-4.1.4 implementation demonstrated this in that
some operations were not supported fully, and some data types were not
fully transportable (such as an inode number, restricted to "ushort" in
SysVr3).  Some of these issues were dealt with in SysVr4 though, IIRC.
[I used RFC with SunOS-4.1.4 to an ISC-2.2 (SysVr3.2/i386) box once and
was successful in accessing tty devices for remote modem sharing....]

I've got the RFS protocol specification, as part of the "AT&T System V
Porting Rules" document for the "Network Services Extension" (307-001
Issue 1, Copyright 1986 AT&T), if anyone's interested though....  :-)

(And if anyone's got the newer version of that specification for SysVr4
RFS I'd be interested in at least learning a bit more about it too....)

							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <>; Secrets of the Weird <>