Skip to main content

Allowing Inheritable NFSv4 Access Control Entries to Override the Umask
draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-11-29
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-11-02
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-10-25
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-09-11
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2017-08-30
05 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-05.txt
2017-08-30
05 (System) New version approved
2017-08-30
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andreas Gruenbacher , "J. Fields"
2017-08-30
05 J. Fields Uploaded new revision
2017-08-23
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2017-08-23
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-08-23
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-08-22
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2017-08-22
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-08-22
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-08-22
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-08-22
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-08-22
04 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2017-08-22
04 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-07-20
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-07-20
04 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-04.txt
2017-07-20
04 (System) New version approved
2017-07-20
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andreas Gruenbacher , "J. Fields"
2017-07-20
04 J. Fields Uploaded new revision
2017-05-30
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Zitao Wang.
2017-05-26
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker.
2017-05-25
03 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2017-05-25
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-05-24
03 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Please expand "ACL" and "ACE" on first use and in the title.

Section 5 uses an all-caps "RECOMMENDATION," which is confusable with (but …
[Ballot comment]
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."
2017-05-24
03 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-05-24
03 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-05-24
03 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-05-24
03 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Editorial:
Page 2: As a result, inherited ACEs describing
        Suggest expanding the “ACE” or adding a reference since the …
[Ballot comment]
Editorial:
Page 2: As a result, inherited ACEs describing
        Suggest expanding the “ACE” or adding a reference since the term first appeared.
2017-05-24
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-05-23
03 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-05-23
03 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-05-23
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-05-23
03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-05-22
03 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-05-22
03 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alexey - an example would be helpful.
As someone who has run into this issue (and differences in behavior!), this …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2017-05-22
03 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-05-22
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
Without being "fluent" in NFSv4, it would be nice to have an example how this fit into larger picture. E.g. by showing a …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2017-05-22
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-05-22
03 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Not sure I understand the reason in section 3 why this document does not update RFC7862. But I guess both (updating or …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2017-05-22
03 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-05-12
03 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-05-12
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot has been issued
2017-05-12
03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-05-12
03 Spencer Dawkins Created "Approve" ballot
2017-05-12
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was changed
2017-05-12
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-05-09
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-05-09
03 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-05-04
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2017-05-04
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2017-05-01
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Zitao Wang
2017-05-01
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Zitao Wang
2017-05-01
03 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Murray Kucherawy
2017-05-01
03 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Murray Kucherawy
2017-04-30
03 Spencer Dawkins Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-05-25
2017-04-28
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2017-04-28
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2017-04-28
03 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-04-28
03 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Spencer Shepler , nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Allowing Inheritable NFSv4 ACLs to Override the Umask) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Allowing Inheritable NFSv4 ACLs to Override the Umask'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In many important environments, inheritable NFSv4 ACLs can be
  rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process umask.
  This can be addressed by transmitting the umask and create mode as
  separate pieces of data, allowing the server to make more intelligent
  decisions about the permissions to set on new files.  This document
  proposes a protocol extension which accomplishes that.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-04-28
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-04-28
03 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2017-04-28
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot approval text was generated
2017-04-28
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was generated
2017-04-28
03 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-04-28
03 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or …

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  In many important environments, inheritable NFSv4 ACLs can be
  rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process umask.
  This can be addressed by transmitting the umask and create mode as
  separate pieces of data, allowing the server to make more intelligent
  decisions about the permissions to set on new files.  This document
  proposes a protocol extension which accomplishes that.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little to no
  contention over the approach and resultant content.

Document Quality

  The quality of this document is high and is ready to move forward.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
 
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

Full document was reviewed by the shepherd and the I-D is ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No additional concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

N/A

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Full consensus from the WG for this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

N/A

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are a few nits that will be easily updated during future updates based on IESG
feedback or during AUTH48 edits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is a dependency on the NFSv4 Versioning I-D that is also in review.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

N/A

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-04-14
03 Spencer Shepler Changed document writeup
2017-03-03
03 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03.txt
2017-03-03
03 (System) New version approved
2017-03-03
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andreas Gruenbacher , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, "J. Fields"
2017-03-03
03 J. Fields Uploaded new revision
2016-12-19
02 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-12-05
02 Spencer Shepler Notification list changed to "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
2016-12-05
02 Spencer Shepler Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler
2016-12-05
02 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-10-03
02 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02.txt
2016-10-03
02 (System) New version approved
2016-10-03
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "J. Fields" , nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, "Andreas Gruenbacher"
2016-10-03
02 J. Fields Uploaded new revision
2016-09-30
01 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-01.txt
2016-09-30
01 J. Fields New version approved
2016-09-30
01 J. Fields Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Andreas Gruenbacher" , "J. Bruce Fields"
2016-09-30
01 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-04-10
00 J. Fields New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-00.txt