Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA!mrose From: mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA (Marshall Rose) Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: NFS comments Message-ID: <3062.535404006@nrtc-gremlin.arpa> Date: Sat, 20-Dec-86 04:48:57 EST Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.3062.535404006 Posted: Sat Dec 20 04:48:57 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 08:38:51 EST References: <12263989106.13.MKL@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.ARPA Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 21 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa In the ISO world, you might consider doing FTAM instead. I think it meets all of your objections, with the notable exception that it's going to be a while before someone writes an ftam that really performs well. You can get concurrency, committment and recovery (CCR) with FTAM for all the usual updating and locking type of problems. Also, owing to its size, you probably would need two protocols on a diskless workstation: a small netload protocol (MAP has one), and then FTAM proper. For those of you interested in looking at FTAM, I suggest you get a copy of parts 1 and 2 of the FTAM draft international standard: ISO DIS 8571/1 File Transfer, Access and Management (FTAM) Part 1: General Description ISO DIS 8571/2 File Transfer, Access and Management (FTAM) Part 2: Virtual Filestore As mentioned in one of the RFCs (I can't remember which), you can purchase these from Omnicom, 703/281-1135. Part 1 will cost you $28, part 2 will cost you $36. /mtr