[nfsv4] Re: Our different approaches to draft POSIX ACL support in NFSv4

[Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 23, 2024, at 5:28 PM, Chris Inacio <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bruce and Marius' draft should suffice to document the legacy non-
>>> standard. It is still available from the data tracker:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping/
>> 
>> So again, it sounds like there does need to be standards
>> action if the WG feels that this expired draft cannot
>> be legitimately cited by a new document. My recollection
>> of the citation rules suggests that it cannot, but I
>> might be wrong.
>> 
>> But even if it can be cited, I don't see how that
>> addresses the IP concerns at all.
>> 
>> 
> 
> [ci] I’m not commenting on the rest of the discussion.  But I will comment, with Chair hat on, about referencing this “closed” or “proprietary” material.  Generally, that is allowed - *as long as it was available enough for all WG participants to consult it during the development of a draft that references it*.  In this case, since it’s openly available, that wouldn’t be a problem.

The concern I have is that the CDDL is not a fully
open license. Yes, the nfs_acl.x file is available on
the open Internet. The license makes it a potential
problem for some.


> [ci] That does NOT clear the IP hurdle if we reuse the techniques, etc.  In that case, yes, an informational with a grant from Oracle for use would be extremely helpful.

No promises, but I can begin to explore that approach. I
feel like that approach would be the most above-board,
and the resulting Informational document would not have
to be large.


> [ci] this has been my experience chairing and shepherding documents through the IETF process.  But I can follow up with the AD/secretariat/etc. to confirm.

That echoes my experiences, and I would feel better if
folks who are more expert in the black art of IP could
weigh in.


--
Chuck Lever