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

[Chris Inacio <[e-mail]>]

I’ll be consulting with IETF legal this afternoon on how to do this.  In the most general case, the IETF participation rules put the onerous on the IP owner to make a declaration.  After a declaration is made, then the WG can know what that declaration covers.

Again, I’ll be consulting the IETF lawyers this afternoon to get guidance on this.


> On Jul 24, 2024, at 7:59 AM, Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2024, at 8:43 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Rick has discussed the possibility of a v4.2 extension but using new attributes has not committed to writing it up.   I'm worried that he might lose interest given the possibility of IP horrors, but I really don't know. From my point of view, the weakness in Rick's approach is that it does not address migration and coexistence issues.  I think that is essential given the history here but many files with ACLs exist on file systems and I think it's important to address the issues of how the existing model and a new one will interact.
> 
> Hence my concern about how POSIX ACLs might appear to clients
> that access them via NFSv3's NFSACL versus how they might
> appear to clients that access them via a putative NFSv4 POSIX
> ACL facility. NFSv3 remains a widely-deployed protocol and I
> believe users would be surprised if there were compatibility
> issues.
> 
> If there are no issues here, great! If there are, IMO new
> documents should help implementers and users understand and
> cope with any differences.
> 
> Given that you believe "it's important to address the issues
> of how the existing model and the new one interact" I hope
> you will provide some guidance in this area in acls-0? or
> follow-on documents. :-)
> 
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
>