> | > | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the > | > | rest > | > | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services". > | > > | > Okay, let me rephrase it then. > | > > | > In order to support file services for all of the OS platforms we > | > support, across all the campuses we support, Kerberized NFSv4 fit > | > the bill best. > | > | The comedy just never ends. > > Glad I can amuse you. I still find it funny that an answer hasn't > been received as well. :)
You don't listen well either. NFSv4 is not on our roadmap. It is a ridiculous bloated protocol which they keep adding crap to. In about a decade the people who actually start auditing it are going to see all the mistakes that it hides. The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the methodology taken by the IPV6 people. (As in, once a mistake is made, and 4 people are running the test code, it is a fact on the ground and cannot be changed again). The result is an unrefined piece of trash.
