Re: [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions, Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

> Even though David responded, the question is for the document
> authors.

Right but I thought it might be helpful to discuss the possible choices
before they decide to pick one.

> My apologies for being opaque about "stable reference".

I don't think you were "opaque".  The problem is that there is a level of
uncertainty about exactly how stable the reference needs to be, and no
matter what we choose, the answer might be different when the IESG (and
various assorted reviewers) consider the matter.

> The  POSIX-1003.1e normative reference makes it appear that it
> is a Posix standards document while in the content of the
> reference it does state "withdrawn" - confusing.

I referenced this issue in my review but I wasn't clear about why this was
a problem.  I just asked how it could be normative, which may not have been
helpful in correcting the problem.  Your formulation is clearer.

> The other problem is that I cannot quickly locate a copy of that
> document

I could quickly locate a copy.  Unfortunately I can also quickly find a
bunch of advertised links to that document, which are broken :-(

> and if it is going to be a normative reference then it needs
> to be reasonably available.

That implies it wouldn't have to if it is an informative reference.  I
suspect that there will be some concern about this issue during the review
process, even for an informative reference.

> I understand that it is a defacto standard at this point given the
> implementation.

I don't think the IESG would be very receptive to the idea of "De facto
Standard References" section :-(

> My main point is that if it is going to be a reference a target needs
> to exist and the naming should likely be changed to remove the
> implication that it is a Posix standard.

I agree.

> As mentioned, if the reference is not needed based on the
> contents of the I-D, then the I-D can be reworded and references >
removed or changed.

I still think the acl man page would be a good target for an informative
reference but the authors need to decide what they want to do about this
issue.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:58 PM, spencer shepler <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Even though David responded, the question is for the document authors.
>
> My apologies for being opaque about "stable reference".
>
> The  POSIX-1003.1e normative reference makes it appear that it is a Posix
> standards document while in the content of the reference it does state
> "withdrawn" - confusing.
>
> The other problem is that I cannot quickly locate a copy of that document
> and if it is going to be a normative reference then it needs to
> be reasonably available.
>
> I understand that it is a defacto standard at this point given the
> implementation.
>
> My main point is that if it is going to be a reference a target needs to
> exist and the naming should likely be changed to remove the implication
> that it is a Posix standard.
>
> As mentioned, if the reference is not needed based on the contents of the
> I-D, then the I-D can be reworded and references removed or changed.
>
> Spencer
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:43 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure about the mechanics of providing a "stable" reference.
>> Certainly that specific draft is not subject to change.
>>
>> An interesting alternative would be a reference based on
>> https://linux.die.net/man/5/acl.   I'm not sure about copyright issues
>> that might arise in creating a stable reference based on this material,
>> but note that Andreas is listed as the author of that man
>> page :-)
>>
>> There's a lot of work for lawyers involved in issues like this.  That
>> doesn't bother me as much as it used to now that my
>> daughter is in law school.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Spencer Shepler <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the umask I-D, there is a normative reference for "POSIX 1003.1e
>>> Withdrawn Draft 17".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, without a stable reference, we will need to remove that
>>> from the document.  Do you have an alternative document that provides the
>>> needed background or is this needed in the I-D?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* nfsv4 [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Spencer
>>> Shepler
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:00 PM
>>> *To:* NFSv4 <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:* [nfsv4] WG Last Call for Extension and Minor Versions,
>>> Extended Attributes, and ACLs / Umask - Ends Dec 2nd 2016
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the announcement of the working group last call for the 3
>>> working group drafts listed below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Accounting for the review of 3 documents and the upcoming US holiday,
>>> the last call will end on Dec 2nd 2016.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If more time is needed for review, let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please provide comments and review feedback to the authors of these
>>> documents.  Substantive comments or feedback should include the working
>>> group alias.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor Versions (
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-07.txt
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-07.txt&data=01%7C01%7Csshepler%40microsoft.com%7Cc1092553ded943ce3bd708d409b4e049%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=n6i4%2BiJnf8qUycmjSRQQkrR3zd0%2BCNb2XK292W6dMok%3D&reserved=0>
>>> )
>>>
>>> File System Extended Attributes in NFSv4 (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft
>>> -ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-03.txt
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-03.txt&data=01%7C01%7Csshepler%40microsoft.com%7Cc1092553ded943ce3bd708d409b4e049%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=sRUZotSPwf89NbIaX72aS4e9wCJT%2B2CcBse9GT0iNBE%3D&reserved=0>
>>> )
>>>
>>> Allowing inheritable NFSv4 ACLs to override the umask (
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02.txt)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>>
>