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

[Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 23, 2024, at 10:27 AM, Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 13:54 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2024, at 7:13 PM, Rick Macklem <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just looked at opensolaris/usr/src/head/rpcsvc/nfs_acl.x
>>> which I think is the closest thing there is to a spec. for NFSACL.
>>> (FreeBSD does not implement this protocol and all I know about it
>>> is what this little .x file indicates.)
>> 
>> That's excellent, thanks for finding it.
>> 
>> My concern about this is that the cited .x file falls under
>> CDDL, and thus cannot be used directly by a GPL-encumbered
>> OS like Linux, nor can it be contributed to the IETF in its
>> current form.
>> 
>> This is clearly prior art.
>> 
>> My question then is whether we should endeavor to produce
>> an Informational document that describes NFSACL without
>> encumbrance -- ie, get Sun-Oracle to contribute that work
>> so that it might be used openly.
>> 
> 
> Why do we care?

As I explained, we do want to have a protocol specification
for NFSv4 that will not be disruptive to folks who were using
NFSv3 and are now accessing the same ACLs via NFSv4.2+

And, this is prior art. If the authors and WG are comfortable
citing a CDDL-encumbered .x file in acls-04, then there's no
need to author an historical Informative document.


> The goal of this group should be to make a version that is appropriate
> for NFSv4. That would need to be a new protocol extension for NFSv4
> that is separate from the existing ACL attribute.
> 
> Even the XDR format of the ACEs will need to be different due to the
> adoption of name@domain format user and group descriptions that replace
> the uid/gid format.
> So there is little overlap with the existing nfsacl.x file (which
> existed as a file with no valid licence description in the glibc rpc
> implementation for many years prior to the existence of the CDDL).

Implementers will need to understand the differences and
ensure that there is compatibility when presenting ACLs to
users, for example. It sounds like there are indeed some
compatibility issues worth mentioning.

I'm simply asking if additional standards action is needed
to ensure that the older work is available and citable in
new documents.


--
Chuck Lever