From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:09:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20060711000946.GA1440@fieldses.org> References: <200607101007.43824.agruen@suse.de> <20060710142445.GB978@fieldses.org> <200607110148.25788.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lisa Week , nfsv4@ietf.org, Sam Falkner , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, "Noveck, Dave" , Spencer Shepler , Brian Pawlowski Return-path: To: Andreas Gruenbacher In-Reply-To: <200607110148.25788.agruen@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 01:48:25AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > 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 draft 17 (withdrawn) or from other drafts, it's all from IEEE Std 1003.1, 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). Argh, I see, you're right. I'd still be willing to give up some degree of posix compliance if it would help get simpler ACLs.... > 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 Thanks! --b. _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4