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

[Rick Macklem <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 2:39 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever=
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2024, at 5:28 PM, Chris Inacio <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bruce and Marius' draft should suffice to document the legacy non-
> >>> standard. It is still available from the data tracker:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping/
> >>
> >> So again, it sounds like there does need to be standards
> >> action if the WG feels that this expired draft cannot
> >> be legitimately cited by a new document. My recollection
> >> of the citation rules suggests that it cannot, but I
> >> might be wrong.
> >>
> >> But even if it can be cited, I don't see how that
> >> addresses the IP concerns at all.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [ci] I’m not commenting on the rest of the discussion.  But I will
> comment, with Chair hat on, about referencing this “closed” or
> “proprietary” material.  Generally, that is allowed - *as long as it was
> available enough for all WG participants to consult it during the
> development of a draft that references it*.  In this case, since it’s
> openly available, that wouldn’t be a problem.
>
> The concern I have is that the CDDL is not a fully
> open license. Yes, the nfs_acl.x file is available on
> the open Internet. The license makes it a potential
> problem for some.
>
I'm certainly no IP guy, but...
- It doesn't look like patents are a problem.
- The above (and other opensolaris sources related to NFSACL)
  that are accessible without signing any contract
  --> No trade secret.
- This leaves Copyright. So long as we do not copy the
  text verbatim, I do not believe there would be any copyright
  infringement.

If we were to do as Christoph suggested and use new attributes,
then there would be no copying, since there would not be the
new RPCs defined by NFSACL.  Any similarity would simply be
naming as used in the POSIX draft.  Using the terminology in
the POSIX draft should be sufficient, I think?

rick


>
> > [ci] That does NOT clear the IP hurdle if we reuse the techniques, etc.
> In that case, yes, an informational with a grant from Oracle for use would
> be extremely helpful.
>
> No promises, but I can begin to explore that approach. I
> feel like that approach would be the most above-board,
> and the resulting Informational document would not have
> to be large.
>
>
> > [ci] this has been my experience chairing and shepherding documents
> through the IETF process.  But I can follow up with the AD/secretariat/etc.
> to confirm.
>
> That echoes my experiences, and I would feel better if
> folks who are more expert in the black art of IP could
> weigh in.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>