From: Sam Falkner Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:45:59 -0600 Message-ID: References: <992BA60650F1584BA63E339312CE420305B9456D@exsvl02.hq.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Lisa Week , nfsv4@ietf.org, "J. Bruce Fields" , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, "Noveck, Dave" , Spencer Shepler , "Pawlowski, Brian" , Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4g9M-00074e-Bs for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:45:48 -0700 Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1G4g9L-0005cm-KC for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:45:48 -0700 Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.108.184]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k6NFjfQ9019633 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:45:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) id <0J2V00L014YUTF00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Sam.Falkner@Sun.COM) for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:45:41 -0600 (MDT) In-reply-to: <992BA60650F1584BA63E339312CE420305B9456D@exsvl02.hq.netapp.com> To: "Yoder, Alan" 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 On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Yoder, Alan wrote: > A whisper of warning from experience in other > standards bodies (SNIA), where we have things > like this in our spec. It's dangerous to > place informational algorithms in otherwise > normative text, even if they're labeled as > informational. They tend to get enshrined in > plugfest procedures, independent certification > or test suites, and such, and then they're not > really informational any more. Even the informal > "language" they're written in can get set up > on a pedestal. > > I realize this may not be welcome advice, but I'd > advise either keeping these things out of the spec, > or doing the work to formalize them, verify them, > and make them normative. Or both. I have created Issue 93 to resolve whether or not the algorithms should be included in the minorversion1 document. I vote "no" on their inclusion, but it's only a slight preference. I do not want to make the current algorithms normative. - Sam ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs