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

[Chris Inacio <[e-mail]>]

Oh - I didn’t mean to dissuade you if you want to put forth the effort.  My goal was to save you the effort if you didn’t want to invest it in an informational draft.

With chair hat on: I would support you doing an informational draft that cleared the decks.

chris


> On Jul 25, 2024, at 6:41 AM, Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
>> On Jul 25, 2024, at 2:13 AM, Chris Inacio <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> IETF counsel said that at this point we should just continue developing the protocol however we see fit.  During the preparation of the draft, any IPR holders should make (as always) any declarations.
>> 
>> Right now, the counsel does not think that an informational draft is worth the effort.  That any issues should be able to be handled without too much complication as we progress a draft.
>> 
>> That said, he’s reviewing the entire email thread and may provide me with updated guidance after reviewing the thread.
> 
> One thing that a draft might do is provide Oracle with an
> appropriate venue to review any internal history it has
> left and publish relevant IPR disclaimers, just to clear
> the decks.
> 
> There are perhaps other reasons to proceed with an NFSACL
> draft, but I can let it rest for a while.
> 
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever