Subject: [nfsv4] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 11:47:05 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alexey - an example would be helpful.
As someone who has run into this issue (and differences in behavior!),
this is a useful document.

Nits:
Abstract:
"In many important environments, inheritable NFSv4 ACLs can be
   rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process umask."
s/important//
1: (personal peeve) - every environment is important to someone...
2: this makes it sound like inheritable ACLs would NOT be ineffective if
the environment is not important :-)

Sec 2.  Problem Statement
"As a result, inherited ACEs describing"....
First use of ACE, please expand / reference.