Subject: [nfsv4] ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE

From: "Mike Eisler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:32:26 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

One of the comments from the IETF-wide Last Call (which has concluded)
is that the description of ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE is weak.

After doing some searches on the web, including this mailing list,
the following is my proposed text. Please critique.

<                     Permission to access file locally at the server with
<                     synchronized reads and writes.
---
>                     Permission to use the file object as a
>                     synchronization primitive for interprocess
>                     communication. This permission is not enforced
>                     or interpreted by the NFSv4.1 server on behalf of
>                     the client.
>
>                     <vspace blankLines='1' />
>
>                       Typically the ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE permission is
>                       only meaningful on local file systems, i.e.
>                       file systems not accessed via NFSv4.1. The reason
>                       why the permission bit exists is that some operating
>                       environments, such as Windows, use ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE.
>
>                     <vspace blankLines='1' />
>
>                       E.g., if a client copies a file that has
>                       ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE set from a local file system to
>                       an NFSv4.1 server, and then later copies the file
>                       from the NFSv4.1 server to a local file system,
>                       it is likely that if ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE was set
>                       in the original file, the client will want it
>                       set in the second copy.  The first copy will not
>                       have the permission set unless the NFSv4.1 server
>                       has the means to set the ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE bit. The
>                       second copy will not have the permission set unless
>                       the NFSv4.1 server has the means to retrieve the
>                       ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE bit.

-- 
Mike Eisler, Senior Technical Director, NetApp, 719 599 9026,
http://blogs.netapp.com/eislers_nfs_blog/

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

---

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:36:30 -0500

Looks good.  I just have a few nits

>                       Typically the ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE permission is

to 

>                       Typically, the ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE permission is

and 

>                       why the permission bit exists is that some
operating

to 

>                       that the permission bit exists is that some
operating

In the case of,

>                       E.g., if a client copies a file that has

I would spell out "For example,".  Even though that is what "E.g.,"
means, using it at the beginning of sentence is clumsy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Eisler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:32 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nfsv4] ACE4_SYNCHRONIZE

Hi,

<                     Permission to access file locally at the server
with
<                     synchronized reads and writes.
---

---

From: Greg Banks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:34:07 +1100

> the following is my proposed text. Please critique.

Much better.

-- 
Greg Banks, P.Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
the brightly coloured sporks of revolution.
I don't speak for SGI.