From: "Noveck, Dave" Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:29:42 -0400 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Sam Falkner , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Spencer Shepler , "Pawlowski, Brian" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1SR6-00040M-JB for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:30:48 -0700 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1G1SR3-0005sS-Pg for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:30:49 -0700 To: "J. Bruce Fields" , List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net I think in all the cases you mentioned, we a have situation in which the set of attributes you ask for can effect whether you get an error or not. I'm not aware of any case in which you will get different values for a single attribute (no error in either case) based on whether you are asking for a different attribute. Other than things like asking for an attribute that doesn't exist will cause an error to be set in rdattr_error, but that is part of the function of rdattr_error. -----Original Message----- From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:bfields@fieldses.org] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:23 PM To: nfsv4@ietf.org Cc: Sam Falkner; Pawlowski, Brian; Spencer Shepler; nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Re: [NFS] NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask,draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:59:30PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > For a client that doesn't support the new attributes, a server can apply > the mask attributes to the ACL before returning it. I suppose a > multi-protocol server would do the same for CIFS clients. By the way, the proposed protocol behavior here is odd: the server returns a different ACL depending on whether the client requested any of the new mask attributes in the same GETATTR. But I suppose there are other cases (rdattr_error, maybe some migration cases??) where what we return can depend in strange ways on which attributes were requested, so maybe it's not totally without precedent? --b. _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs