From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20060721181058.GA17169@fieldses.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lisa Week , nfsv4@ietf.org, Sam Falkner , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Spencer Shepler , "Pawlowski, Brian" , Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: To: "Noveck, Dave" In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 11:10:04AM -0400, Noveck, Dave wrote: > > Rethinking, it would be preferable to have the ACL specification > > specify requirements, and have the algorithms serve as examples. > > I think the requirements that the algorithms are intended to address, > would be helpful in understanding, whether the algorithms are > examples or are mandatory. Yes. My point wasn't necessarily that they should not be mandatory (though I think they probably shouldn't be--I'm not yet convinced they're actually correct), but that we need clarified whether they're mandatory or not, and what requirements they're meant to meet, before we can evaluate them properly. > I think this would complicate understanding and review. Even if > the algorithms are examples and not mandatory, I would imagine > they would be helpful in understanding the requirements and their > implications, and if they are helpful, they should be in the spec, > with an indication that they are illustrative and not mandatory. But I don't care whether they're incorporated by reference or copying. --b. _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4