Return-Path: Received: from magus.merit.edu ([198.108.1.13]:34113 "EHLO magus.merit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757820Ab0HCV5G (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:57:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:57:04 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: Daniel.Muntz@emc.com Cc: bfields@fieldses.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: numeric UIDs Message-ID: <20100803215704.GA15494@merit.edu> References: <201008030401.33552.dreck@vmsd.ath.cx> <20100803164318.GB13896@merit.edu> <20100803192216.GC31579@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Daniel.Muntz@emc.com wrote: I'll fourth this motion. The spec goes out of its way to declare this a violation. IMHO, the NFSv4.[0-n] specs should adopt the convention that a uid string consisting of [0-9]+ be interpreted as the string representation of a numeric UID--just as valid as a "user@domain" string. I argued for this as an option in the early days but was shouted down. Sorry I can't remember the details, it was many years ago.