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

[Chris Inacio <[e-mail]>]

>> 
>> 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.

[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.

[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.


> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]