Re: [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions, Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> Thu, 08 December 2016 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bfields@fieldses.org>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED622129AE2 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:22:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p1KSCPocrcDE for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [IPv6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe50:41d6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05AC129B6E for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id BF18F4C62; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:19:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:19:01 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161208221901.GD26583@fieldses.org>
References: <MWHPR03MB28935C4A8AF5FCDB34B37EA6C7B80@MWHPR03MB2893.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR03MB289323FB62D892F442482D9CC7830@MWHPR03MB2893.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CADaq8jewDSJZ7p3Kbjg43z0yhSWf20HcB+e+qgY35h0YavgryA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFt6BakDsGoo56KQPV-UGcCsPd=pUzrmy+j1DkGmy-6ryrDTbg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jd42_UThHThuO-co5VSrU1go=QPiEXhu=rAdx6h2SSHYg@mail.gmail.com> <20161208202952.GB26583@fieldses.org> <CADaq8je-pL0yGUvzL2r7wjSWXeWZBf3DgF5APMDKQpD2ejY16Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8je-pL0yGUvzL2r7wjSWXeWZBf3DgF5APMDKQpD2ejY16Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Dd4Kym-vGxAbQDz6kF1txOwKqqE>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions, Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:22:27 -0000

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:51:41PM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > Are there other examples of RFC's referencing man pages?
> 
> I don't think so but I don't think there are RFC's referencing withdrawn
> POSIX drafts either. Sigh!
> 
> > I guess for now I'll keep the existing reference and move it to
> > an "informative references" section.
> 
> I think you need a place to find this document such as a URL.  That's what
> a reference is for, after all.  I know this sort of stuff can be
> aggravating but I think you are better off getting this out of the way now,
> rather during IESG review.

I haven't found a URL that looks like it would work better than just the
name of the document.

Maybe Andreas knows of one.

If not, then, I don't know, possible choices:

	1. find a good place to archive POSIX-1003.1e ourselves and refer
	   to that.
	2. figure out how to refer to the linux acl man page.
	3. just assert that this is how Linux (and possibly others) have
	   done it without citation.

#3 isn't too helpful, #1 sounds most helpful to everyone involved but
I'm not sure who to ask, so maybe #2 is the most practical.

--b.

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:29 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:49:38AM -0500, David Noveck wrote:
> > > > Even though David responded, the question is for the document
> > > > authors.
> > >
> > > Right but I thought it might be helpful to discuss the possible choices
> > > before they decide to pick one.
> > >
> > > > My apologies for being opaque about "stable reference".
> > >
> > > I don't think you were "opaque".  The problem is that there is a level of
> > > uncertainty about exactly how stable the reference needs to be, and no
> > > matter what we choose, the answer might be different when the IESG (and
> > > various assorted reviewers) consider the matter.
> > >
> > > > The  POSIX-1003.1e normative reference makes it appear that it
> > > > is a Posix standards document while in the content of the
> > > > reference it does state "withdrawn" - confusing.
> > >
> > > I referenced this issue in my review but I wasn't clear about why this
> > was
> > > a problem.  I just asked how it could be normative, which may not have
> > been
> > > helpful in correcting the problem.  Your formulation is clearer.
> > >
> > > > The other problem is that I cannot quickly locate a copy of that
> > > > document
> > >
> > > I could quickly locate a copy.  Unfortunately I can also quickly find a
> > > bunch of advertised links to that document, which are broken :-(
> > >
> > > > and if it is going to be a normative reference then it needs
> > > > to be reasonably available.
> > >
> > > That implies it wouldn't have to if it is an informative reference.  I
> > > suspect that there will be some concern about this issue during the
> > review
> > > process, even for an informative reference.
> > >
> > > > I understand that it is a defacto standard at this point given the
> > > > implementation.
> > >
> > > I don't think the IESG would be very receptive to the idea of "De facto
> > > Standard References" section :-(
> > >
> > > > My main point is that if it is going to be a reference a target needs
> > > > to exist and the naming should likely be changed to remove the
> > > > implication that it is a Posix standard.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > > As mentioned, if the reference is not needed based on the
> > > > contents of the I-D, then the I-D can be reworded and references >
> > > removed or changed.
> > >
> > > I still think the acl man page would be a good target for an informative
> > > reference but the authors need to decide what they want to do about this
> > > issue.
> >
> > I don't care much, I think either could work.  Are there other examples
> > of RFC's referencing man pages?
> >
> > I guess for now I'll keep the existing reference and move it to an
> > "informative references" section.
> >
> > --b.
> >