Subject: [nfsv4] minorversion1-02 3.16.6 ("Interaction Between Mode and ACL Attributes")

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:26:20 -0400

Section 3.16.6 proposes certain algorithms to be used to keep mode bits
and ACLs in synch.  This may help implementers, but it may also give the
false impression that these algorithms are required; could we reword
those sections to make it completely clear that these algorithms are
provides as examples, not requirements?  I don't think we want to
specify behavior to this degree of detail.

Also, for reasons outlined before (complexity of the resulting ACLs and
poor compatibility), I think we should avoid DENY's when possible.  In
particular, the algorithm in 3.16.6.3 requries three DENY's in the final
six ACES even when they are usually unnecessary.  (And the final DENY is
always unnecessary.)

The algorithm in 3.16.6.3 also doesn't behave well on posix-mapped ACLs.
(It unnecessarily appends those extra six ACEs.)

Finally, the complexity of the algorithms here is a bit overwhelming for
someone that just wants to support mode bits and ACLs.  While rfc3530
does seem vague (or even misleading) in this area, is there something
simpler we could propose here, and then leave these detailed discussions
to a separate rfc intended for those willing to sacrifice simplicity in
order to get the highest degree of posix compatibility?

--b.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4