Subject: [nfsv4] ACL concensus?

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:39:54 -0400

This is just my impression of the current concensus on the minor version draft
on ACLs; speak up if I've gotten it wrong.  The summary:

The new language is an improvement over 3530; there will probably be some minor
editing, but other than that the only changes we forsee are in the direction of
removing some text.

There are also two proposed protocol extensions on table:

Currently I don't believe there's sufficient interest in the masks proposal.
We'll submit one more revised draft and give the working group a chance to
comment and confirm that concensus.

There is interest in automatic inheritance; we just lack proposed language.
I'll investigate and see if there's something simple we can propose, probably
in the next couple days.

--b.

------------

More detail on all the above:

Most of the debate was over how exactly we should describe interactions between
modes and ACLs.  Since there doesn't appear to be a concensus here, we're
leaving the spec alone instead of trying to nail down the interactions any
further.

The new spec language provides some more guidance (for example, the additional
details on mask bits) that we believe will be useful to implementors.  It also
describes existing implementations more accurately, for example by making
explicit the default-deny policy, and by relaxing the mode-bit synchronization
language to a SHOULD.  The only large change we forsee is to move some of the
specific algorithms to a separate document.

Masks: Based on feedback during and after my presentation, I believe I had at
least some success convincing people that server-side file masks may be
necessary to keep inherited ACLs useful while meeting posix requirements on
chmod.  I believe I was less succesful at demonstrating the need for additional
protocol.

Automatic inheritance: Despite the name, this appears to be a relatively simple
extension which would be useful at least to Windows clients.  Multiprotocol
servers probably already support this for CIFS.  The concensus is to pursue
this, but we need some language.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:45:43 -0500

> editing, but other than that the only changes we forsee are in the direction of

This aligns with my view of things.  As you mention in the details,
I will be removing the appendix text as of draft -07.

> I'll investigate and see if there's something simple we can propose, probably

If there is consensus on this (which I expect given the discussion to date),
I would like to see text in the I-D in time for the November IETF meeting.

Spencer