Re: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask

Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Thu, 24 August 2017 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <hch@lst.de>
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 07852132196 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 WGi9-mZY0wh3 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209571241FC for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id F22AF68C65; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:36:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:36:37 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@primarydata.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170824083637.GA19186@lst.de>
References: <CCE6471D-5252-4313-BDED-5EAA468E3FAA@primarydata.com> <20170823155536.GA10035@fieldses.org> <CAFt6Ba=Ab=TLURRJ9ULdmU_8FydkeijfoHpgzd1bBTtx6YcBHQ@mail.gmail.com> <7824C7CB-FA68-4BC8-BF92-F93B37521B91@primarydata.com> <CADaq8jd51=2fU=jzi-f17E5Yr-0ZJ461uuXC33Ff90YoCsQtDw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jd51=2fU=jzi-f17E5Yr-0ZJ461uuXC33Ff90YoCsQtDw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/agAeGuccMlI26Qiinj7wjMlCgRE>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 24 Aug 2017 08:36:42 -0000

FYI, I agree with the request - every NFS RFC should be able to
produce valid XDR.

While we're at it it would be great if we had a way to merge the XDR
sniplets from the various RFCs so that we can have an official
combined XDR that we know is valid and can be used as starting point
for implementations.