Re: [nfsv4] proposed slight change to ACCESS and wordsmithing changes for chapter 18 (thru the LINK operation)

["Mike Eisler" <mre-ietf at eisler.com>]

>
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:42 -0700, Mike Eisler wrote:
>> If you don't have [it] said, then we are open to misinterpretations. E.g.
[...]
>> With the proposed text, we allow programs like 'test' to rely completely
>> on access()/NFSv4.1 ACCESS to do the right thing, without having
>> to inspect permission bits.
>
> BTW: is anyone capturing this for the (hopefully forthcoming)
> clarification/bugfix of the v4.0 spec? AFAIK, this is an issue with
> ramifications that go all the way back to NFSv2...

NFSv3, v2 had no ACCESS.

Regardless my focus is on NFSv4.1 and beyond. Cleaning up the v4.0 is
nice to have, but evne so some cleanups that introduce interop problems are
likely best left alone. And, assuming my proposal is deemed acceptable for
v4.1, ACCESS is a cleanup that should not be incorporated in v4.0.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4