Return-Path: 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 4E00DC14F69E for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pali.im Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxYnG6D4Sr2D for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pali.im (mail.pali.im [IPv6:2a02:2b88:6:5cc6::2a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8A6C14F5F7 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:34:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pali.im; s=mail; t=1725813251; i=@pali.im; bh=fF2ERRKRlNegx4BO/4DxTm8YuvExqlF1KUsiM/ozzic=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nHygaIa7yn8qGXOWwSQSlpfxTHcxVxkOUMyjWjFVqQC0+uyrysf74LeJymmsfBAo/ T3hcx5yFwGHYmRBajjnxQXj7QSgjtA0UpbtexjcSO9RUgpwFDSJ8rUHuq/tpK+tjA7 joH+2p9hfFNXUxkf/yXYPAeT1CqslNgL+U3FKGQY+uw35cNsHwpAQS8dzs+72pScyF YNJO+FZi0TwFfC15wCHsCstMyoLxzwY28+5bGLoD3xhkusKh2QtgjIJZGxLQeMzokn 6NpLaw5QDEssMSoeS+OCNLsecqNBv8nQa4jTlQp2LdxBoyhdIzooevqRMA5umzCy1S QadwESlyBzQIQ== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id 89ABFA4E; Sun, 8 Sep 2024 18:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 18:34:11 +0200 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: David Noveck Message-ID: <20240908163411.e2vobyl7yhaz6sdt@pali> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Message-ID-Hash: OZC7IRJNZGPJATQEJPMWVQPF6JLCKKOE X-Message-ID-Hash: OZC7IRJNZGPJATQEJPMWVQPF6JLCKKOE X-MailFrom: pali-ietf-nfsv4@ietf.pali.im X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-nfsv4.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: NFSv4 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bnfsv4=5D_Re=3A_Interim_meeting_agenda_topics?= List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Sunday 08 September 2024 12:05:54 David Noveck wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024, 4:35 PM Rick Macklem wrote: > > What is left to be resolved / is controversial on the POSIX_ACL draft? > > Nothing from my point of view. I don't know of any issues Rick has. It > is reasonable to expect that anyone who does have issues to raise them on > the list. We may need to confirm the non-existence of such issues at the > forthcoming interim meeting. I think we should allocate five minutes for > this. Hello, I have already pointed one issue on the list - problem with mode attribute (two meaning modes: NFS4 and POSIX) and its backward/forward compatibility on existing NFS4 servers for clients without POSIX ACL extension.