Subject: [nfsv4] draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:36:38 +0000

Hi Bruce,

Can you modify your draft such that it generates xdr?

I.e., I went to add a new const for your new attribute, and unlike the xattr document, I had to guess:

%/*
% * New For UMASK
% */
const FATTR4_MODE_UMASK         = 81;

I’d recommend that you add the ‘///‘.

Also, you should use the <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> at the very least here:

4.  mode_umask Attribute

         struct mode_umask4 {
           mode4  mu_mode;
           mode4  mu_umask;
         };

Thanks,
Tom

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:55:36 -0400

> Can you modify your draft such that it generates xdr?

I considered that but it seemed like a lot of boilerplate for little
return.  The code to extract the xdr might almost be longer than the xdr
you're extracting.  I dunno.

> I.e., I went to add a new const for your new attribute, and unlike the xattr document, I had to guess:

You didn't have to guess the number, just the constant name, right?  I'm
not sure how much that matters.

--b.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:24:46 -0700

We need to close on this (if there is going to be a change or not).. This
document is technically in AUTH48 period - we can make the changes but need
to know what they are and hear any objections (as has been queried for
Manoj's changes).

Tom?

Spencer

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:46:44 +0000

On Aug 23, 2017, at 4:24 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

We need to close on this (if there is going to be a change or not).. This document is technically in AUTH48 period - we can make the changes but need to know what they are and hear any objections (as has been queried for Manoj's changes).

Tom?

While I would like it cleaner, I am fine without making a change.

Spencer

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

--b.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:53:38 -0400

> We need to close on this (if there is going to be a change or not)..

We certainly do.

I'm kind of unsure about how a decision will be made.

I suppose some people will comment and then Spencer will wrestle with the
subtleties of the concept of consensus.

I hope it will be a help to the proocess but my opinion is that Tom' s
requests are reasonable and the requested changes should be made.  I think
I raised these issues during WGLC but didn't bother to press the matter at
that time.  Unlike Tom, I would not be OK if this change is not made, but I
don't want to make a big deal about it.   I guess we need to  hear from
Bruce with a clear statement about his willingness to make the requested
changes.  Bruce appears reluctant (so far) to make these changes but he has
not actually refused.

> This document is technically in AUTH48 period

Actually, it has not yet started RFC editing.  For some reason it is stuck
in MISSREF.  It shouldn't be because it is waiting for RFC 8178 which was
published in July.

>we can make the changes but need to know what they are and hear any
objections

I think Tom's request was pretty clear.

I haven't heard any objections, unless you count Bruce's remarks, which are
ambiguous.  It is a question of how long we are willing to wait, but even
if there are no objections, the real question is whether Bruce is willing
to make the requested changes.  I think these changes will only be made if
Bruce is willing to make them.

 > (as has been queried for Manoj's changes).

There the changes have alreay been made and the question is how long we are
willing to wait for objections which are unlikely to arive.

How about 48 hours?  i.e. if there are no objections by 3:00 UTC on 8/26,
the changes are to be considered to be approved.  OK?

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 4:24 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:28:57 -0700

> subtleties of the concept of consensus.

Consensus has been met IMO.  Tom raised the issue, Bruce responded, I asked
if Tom would be okay without making the change, he said he was "fine
without making the change".

> changes.  Bruce appears reluctant (so far) to make these changes but he has

If you like to suggest a change, Dave, then please do so directly.  It is
unclear with the above text your position since you state "I don't want to
make a big deal about it" and "but he has not actually refused".

As mentioned, I consider the issue closed and we can move forward.  Please
clarify.

> in MISSREF.  It shouldn't be because it is waiting for RFC 8178 which was

Looks like the editor needs a nudge as to the MISSREF - I will check into
that.

> I haven't heard any objections, unless you count Bruce's remarks, which
> are ambiguous.  It is a question of how long we are willing to wait, but
> even if there are no objections, the real question is whether Bruce is
> willing to make the requested changes.  I think these changes will only be
> made if Bruce is willing to make them.
>

As mentioned, I am clear so if there is is concern with my position -
suggest modified text or assert support for Tom's modifications clearly and
we will go from there and reopen the issue.

> There the changes have alreay been made and the question is how long we
> are willing to wait for objections which are unlikely to arive.
>

No.  Thanks for pointing out that I did not provide a deadline for
feedback.  Given summer vacations, etc. I will ask for feedback by next
Wednesday and will post this to the original thread.

Spencer

---

From: Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:36:37 +0200

FYI, I agree with the request - every NFS RFC should be able to
produce valid XDR.

While we're at it it would be great if we had a way to merge the XDR
sniplets from the various RFCs so that we can have an official
combined XDR that we know is valid and can be used as starting point
for implementations.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:32:08 -0400

As far as the idea of being able to produce a consolidated XDR,  I remember
that I once proposed a series of conventions to allow a script to produce
an XDR from an existing XDR and an extension document.  I'll try to dig up
that email and turn it into a short I-D.

---

From: Thomas Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:46:41 +0000

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I did this earlier this week:
https://github.com/loghyr/nfsv42_xdr

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:45:08 -0400

> https://github.com/loghyr/nfsv42_xdr

Thanks!

I think Christoph was looking for something automatic, though?  Like a
script you could feed RFC URLs to and have it spit out an XDR file.

I guess it could be nice, I'm just afraid it may take me a few days to
get around to it.  And I just got a "draft approved for publication"
email yesterday so I was kinda surprised there's still time.  Clearly I
don't understand how this works.

--b.

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:46:11 -0400

> And I just got a "draft approved for publication"
> email yesterday so I was kinda surprised there's still time.

It can take a while to get from approval for publication to AUTH48, which
always
takes longer than 48 hours.

With 8178, I was pretty lucky in that in that it took only five weeks.

8154 took over five months.

> Clearly I don't understand how this works.

You are not alone.  Just because there will be a delay does not mean you
are free
to make changes, even well-justified ones, at any time in that period.  It
is best to
co-ordinate with the Spencers.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:49:01 -0700

Bruce,

Do you agree to make changes as per Tom's original request?

Spencer

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:25:22 -0400

> Do you agree to make changes as per Tom's original request?

I can do it, it might just take a week or two to get to it.

(Or Tom can send a patch--source is in
git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/NFSv4-umask.git.)

--b.

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:27:33 -0700

Thanks for agreeing to the change.  The timeline we can work out.

Spencer