Re: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> We need to close on this (if there is going to be a change or not)..

We certainly do.

I'm kind of unsure about how a decision will be made.

I suppose some people will comment and then Spencer will wrestle with the
subtleties of the concept of consensus.

I hope it will be a help to the proocess but my opinion is that Tom' s
requests are reasonable and the requested changes should be made.  I think
I raised these issues during WGLC but didn't bother to press the matter at
that time.  Unlike Tom, I would not be OK if this change is not made, but I
don't want to make a big deal about it.   I guess we need to  hear from
Bruce with a clear statement about his willingness to make the requested
changes.  Bruce appears reluctant (so far) to make these changes but he has
not actually refused.

> This document is technically in AUTH48 period

Actually, it has not yet started RFC editing.  For some reason it is stuck
in MISSREF.  It shouldn't be because it is waiting for RFC 8178 which was
published in July.

>we can make the changes but need to know what they are and hear any
objections

I think Tom's request was pretty clear.

I haven't heard any objections, unless you count Bruce's remarks, which are
ambiguous.  It is a question of how long we are willing to wait, but even
if there are no objections, the real question is whether Bruce is willing
to make the requested changes.  I think these changes will only be made if
Bruce is willing to make them.


 > (as has been queried for Manoj's changes).

There the changes have alreay been made and the question is how long we are
willing to wait for objections which are unlikely to arive.

How about 48 hours?  i.e. if there are no objections by 3:00 UTC on 8/26,
the changes are to be considered to be approved.  OK?

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 4:24 PM, spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> We need to close on this (if there is going to be a change or not).. This
> document is technically in AUTH48 period - we can make the changes but need
> to know what they are and hear any objections (as has been queried for
> Manoj's changes).
>
> Tom?
>
>
> While I would like it cleaner, I am fine without making a change.
>
>
>
> Spencer
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:36:38PM +0000, Thomas Haynes wrote:
>> > Hi Bruce,
>> >
>> > Can you modify your draft such that it generates xdr?
>>
>> I considered that but it seemed like a lot of boilerplate for little
>> return.  The code to extract the xdr might almost be longer than the xdr
>> you're extracting.  I dunno.
>>
>> >
>> > I.e., I went to add a new const for your new attribute, and unlike the
>> xattr document, I had to guess:
>>
>> You didn't have to guess the number, just the constant name, right?  I'm
>> not sure how much that matters.
>>
>> --b.
>>
>> > %/*
>> > % * New For UMASK
>> > % */
>> > const FATTR4_MODE_UMASK         = 81;
>> >
>> > I’d recommend that you add the ‘///‘.
>> >
>> > Also, you should use the <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> at the very
>> least here:
>> >
>> > 4.  mode_umask Attribute
>> >
>> >
>> >          struct mode_umask4 {
>> >            mode4  mu_mode;
>> >            mode4  mu_umask;
>> >          };
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
>