Re: [nfsv4] NFSv4.2 status

On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 17:06 +0000, Spencer Shepler wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Thomas Haynes
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:52 PM
> > To: nfsv4@ietf.org
> > Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4.2 status
> > 
> > In reviewing for the meeting tomorrow, I just went over the notes from
> > Maastricht and I was wondering where we were with regards to NFSv4.2?
> 
> As the result of the discussion/review of the draft-faibish-nfsv4-pnfs-access-permissions-check
> draft, it will become a -00 working group draft on next update.  Given this, these changes
> are the near term candidate for an NFSv4.2.
> 
> I will be working with our ADs on milestone/date updates based on the
> next couple of design-group concalls (fedfs and nfsv4.0bis).
> 
> There is obviously interest in other additions given the drafts in existence
> for server side copy, space reservation, and pathless objects.  If one or 
> more of those gain interest, activity, support, then we'll move forward
> with them.  It appears that a vector of support is forming behind
> virtualization support.  My preference is that we move where there is
> interest/energy so progress can be readily made.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

Just a reminder that we are very committed to security label support for
NFSv4.2. If we are going for a virtualization support theme this
definitely has an impact on virtualization security. We have been using
SELinux  with svirt for a while on RHEL and Fedora machines and it would
be great for those vm images to be on an NFS share and still be able to
use svirt (not possible at the moment without the security label
support). Sorin and I also intend on showing a use case for security
labels using our products at the october Bake-A-Thon.

Dave