Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!quick!srg
From: srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <213@quick.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 88 00:18:21 GMT
References: <184@quick.COM> <929@nusdhub.UUCP>
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle
Lines: 23

In article <929@nusdhub.UUCP>, rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes:
) in article <184@quick.COM>, srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett) says:
) > Another problem with RFS is that the control structures are passed
) > around in native binary (or so say the AT&T training folks), so you
) > can't mount filesystems on machines with different byte orders.
) 
) Having gotten out my magic book, I see that it is true that
) the structures are passed around in binary.
) 
) I would like, however, to ask how Spencer suggests they be
) passed around?  The network hardware and software is more than
) equal to the task of swapping all the bytes around while it
) is being processed.  All the structures are aligned "long"s
) and/or character arays <one aray per structure MAX>.

The key word here is "native".  The AT&T folks told me there was no
attempt to use network byte order and no equivalent to SUN's XDR
protocol.  They appear to have been wrong, but I quoted my source
so MY statement is still correct.  Binary is fine, as long as you
agree on the representation and byte order.  Does the magic book
indicate how they solve this problem?  I presume they use NBO
and two's complement representation, but if the standard doesn't
SAY that, they've still got a problem.