From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:48:25 +0200 Message-ID: <200607110148.25788.agruen@suse.de> References: <200607101007.43824.agruen@suse.de> <20060710142445.GB978@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: Sam Falkner , Lisa Week , "J. Bruce Fields" , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, "Noveck, Dave" , Spencer Shepler , Brian Pawlowski Return-path: To: nfsv4@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20060710142445.GB978@fieldses.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: On Monday, 10. July 2006 16:24, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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? No, *none* of what I am referring to as POSIX requirements is from 1003.1e draft 17 (withdrawn) or from other drafts, it's all from IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 edition (which is IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 (POSIX) with corrigenda). Look up the following sections in the definitions volume: 3.4 Additional File Access Control Mechanism 3.12 Alternate File Access Control Mechanism 3.166 File Group Class 3.172 File Other CLass 3.173 File Owner Class 3.174 File Permission Bits 4.4 File Access Permissions Andreas -- Andreas Gruenbacher Novell / SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4