From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask,
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:24:45 -0400
Message-ID: <20060710142445.GB978@fieldses.org>
References: <C98692FD98048C41885E0B0FACD9DFB8028CEAAC@exnane01.hq.netapp.com>
	<200607101007.43824.agruen@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Lisa Week <Lisa.Week@sun.com>, Sam Falkner <Sam.Falkner@sun.com>,
	nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com>,
	Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@sun.com>,
	Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
Return-path: <nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org>
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200607101007.43824.agruen@suse.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org
List-ID: <nfs.lists.sourceforge.net>

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 10:07:43AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>  - define mechanisms which can be used to achieve *full* POSIX compliance of
>    NFSv4.1 ACLs, on systems which implement a POSIX compliant ACL model,

All of these "POSIX" requirements (including the language about
additional and alternate access control mechanisms) are from the one
draft, right?

In other words, this is stuff people tried and failed to come to some
agreement on in the past.

Other things being equal, I've got nothing against full compliance with
that draft, but careless use of the word posix here may make it look
like a bigger requirement than it really is.

--b.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4