Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Editorial: Page 2: As a result, inherited ACEs describing Suggest expanding the “ACE” or adding a reference since the term first appeared.
I agree with Alexey - an example would be helpful. As someone who has run into this issue (and differences in behavior!), this is a useful document. Nits: Abstract: "In many important environments, inheritable NFSv4 ACLs can be rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process umask." s/important// 1: (personal peeve) - every environment is important to someone... 2: this makes it sound like inheritable ACLs would NOT be ineffective if the environment is not important :-) Sec 2. Problem Statement "As a result, inherited ACEs describing".... First use of ACE, please expand / reference.
Not sure I understand the reason in section 3 why this document does not update RFC7862. But I guess both (updating or not updating) is fine.
Without being "fluent" in NFSv4, it would be nice to have an example how this fit into larger picture. E.g. by showing a file create request.
Please expand "ACL" and "ACE" on first use and in the title. Section 5 uses an all-caps "RECOMMENDATION," which is confusable with (but not) an RFC2119 term. If this is intended to be invoke RFC2119 terminology, please rephrase with "RECOMMENDED" or "SHOULD." If not, please remove the capitalization or change to a synonym that is less confusable with "RECOMMENDED."