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 |