Extended attributes for NFSv3 - possible Linux interop

David P. Quigley dpquigl at tycho.nsa.gov
Tue Jul 6 14:18:33 UTC 2010

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 10:30 +0100, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2010, at 10:25, James Morris wrote:
> >> I'm happy to help contribute to the writing on an Internet Draft and/or 
> >> RFC -- the lack of NFS support for EAs (and the EA vs. file fork 
> >> confusion) have long caused me frustration, and with systems like 
> >> SELinux, our various MAC policies, and all sorts of other things 
> >> floating around, there's a strong motivation to fix this ... in a 
> >> portable way! I'm just sorry I haven't gotten to this sooner...
> > 
> > The IETF process is closed for NFSv3, so in this case, it would be not an 
> > ID or RFC.
> >From a working group, yes, but a third-party informational RFC might fit the process? It's been about a decade since I've done anything in IETF-land so I'm not familiar with how the process has evolved. However, there used to be a way to feed "this is a best practice originating outside the IETF with protocol implications" ID through the RFC system, which leaves it "not a standard" but at least a useful reference in an authoritative form.
> Robert

It is possible to do this work not as a working group document which
would be ideal since there is no NFSv3 WG. What you need to do is draft
up the specification and submit it as an personal internet draft. Then
since there is no working group you would probably need to contact the
Transport Area Director (Still Lars I believe) to have him sponsor your
document. Of course this may take a few iterations of the document
before Lars is happy with it. You should also get people on the NFSv4
working group to look it over as well since some of them were probably
involved with v3. Once Lars decides to sponsor the document it needs
IESG approval (I think its IESG and not IAB). They will put out a
request for experts to review your document and once again several
iterations of review and rewrites will happen. Once that is all done the
IESG sends it along to the RFC editor and eventually you will get an
informational rfc numbers. Most times leaving it at this is sufficient
for most people. Make sure that everyone knows its informational though
and you don't intend it for the standards track. CALIPSO which was the
IPv6 mls security option (not really an option since IPv6 doesn't have
options) was done as an informational RFC.


More information about the freebsd-hackers mailing list