Subject: RE: Draft agenda for NFSv4 meeting in Minneapolis Wed. Mar. 20 13 :00 - 15:00

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:25:49 -0800

I assume you mean the minimum if the server implements 
ACL's at all.

I think this is an excellent idea.  It will be vety difficult
if there is not a reliable subset that a client can depend on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Kupfer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:42 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft agenda for NFSv4 meeting in Minneapolis Wed. Mar. 20
13 :00 - 15:00 

> Anybody have additions or other changes to this list?

ACLs.  I don't know what category it should go under (i.e., I don't
know how far anyone has gotten with the implementation or testing).

Last year I talked about writing up a proposal for the minimum subset
of the ACL definition in RFC 3010 that a server must implement.  I
haven't gotten to it yet, because it seems like there is always some
more important (or more pressing) issue to attend to.  Is there still
interest in such a proposal?

mike

---

From: Mike Kupfer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:46:54 -0800

> I assume you mean the minimum if the server implements 

Right.

mike

---

From: Mike Kupfer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:39:43 -0800

Okay, I'll see what I can do as far as an ACL subset spec.  I would
not bet on it being written before the next IETF meeting,
unfortunately.

mike