Skip to main content

Allowing Inheritable NFSv4 Access Control Entries to Override the Umask
RFC 8275

Yes

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-05-22 for -03)
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.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-24 for -03)
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."

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-22 for -03)
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.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-24 for -03)
Editorial:
 Page 2: As a result, inherited ACEs describing 
        Suggest expanding the “ACE” or adding a reference since the term first appeared.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-22 for -03)
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.

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)