[nfsv4] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05.txt

[Pali Rohár <[e-mail]>]

Hello David, I would like to ask you, have you considered to include or
improve fixes for issues related to ACLs which I described in my email
with subject "My feedback for NFSv4.1 specification" from Aug 5? It
would be nice to at least address incompatibility with Windows ACLs.
Pali

On Tuesday 20 August 2024 11:22:20 David Noveck wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:13 AM
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05.txt
> To: David Noveck <[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05.txt has been
> successfully submitted by David Noveck and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:     draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls
> Revision: 05
> Title:    ACLs within the NFSv4 Protocols
> Date:     2024-08-20
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    178
> URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05.txt
> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls/
> HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05.html
> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls
> Diff:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-acls-05
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>    This document is part of the set of documents intended to update the
>    description of NFSv4 Minor Version One as part of the rfc5661bis
>    respecification effort for NFv4.1.  It describes the structure and
>    function of Access Control Lists within all existing minor versions
>    of NFSv4.
> 
>    It describes the structure of NFSv4 ACLs and their role in the NFSv4
>    security architecture.  While the focus of this document is on the
>    role of ACLs in providing a more flexible approach to file access
>    authorization than is made available by the POSIX-derived
>    authorization-related attributes, the potential provision of other
>    security-related functionality is covered as well.
> 
>    [Consensus Needed (Item #117a)]: Because of the failure of previous
>    specifications to provide a satisfactory approach to either of the
>    two ACL models for which support was originally intended, this
>    document clarifies the status of draft POSIX ACLs, with the
>    expectation that support for these might be provided via a later
>    extension.  In addition, this document will include some small
>    protocol extensions to correct protocol defects, as provided for in
>    RFC8178.
> 
>    [Consensus Needed (Item #117a)]: In this document, the relationship
>    among the multiple ACL models supported has changed.  A core set of
>    functionality, shared in large part with that derived from a subset
>    of the functionality provided by the now-withdrawn draft POSIX ACLs
>    is presented as the conceptual base of the feature set.  Additional
>    sets of features used to provide the functionality within the NFSv4
>    ACL model and the full draft POSIX ACL model are considered as
>    OPTIONAL extensions to that core, with the latter not yet present in
>    NFsv4.1.
> 
>    The current version of the document is intended, in large part, to
>    result in working group discussion regarding repairing problems with
>    previous specifications of ACL-related features and to enable work to
>    provide a greater degree of interoperability than has been available
>    heretofore.  The drafts provide a framework for addressing these
>    issues and obtaining working group consensus regarding necessary
>    changes.
> 
>    When the resulting document is eventually published as an RFC, it
>    will supersede the descriptions of ACL structure and semantics
>    appearing in existing minor version specification documents for
>    NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, thereby updating RFC7530 and RFC8881.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat