On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:00:08AM -0800, Thomas Haynes wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > > (I see AUTH_SYS as a different issue. It's unfortunately true that > > AUTH_SYS has effectively turned out to be required-to-implement even if > > it wasn't meant to be, so maybe the spec's out of line with reality > > there; but I haven't heard of that causing any practical > > problems--whereas "why does ls show all users as nobody after an upgrade > > to NFSv4" is a FAQ.) > > If everyone were to adopt this approach to solve the FAQ, then wouldn't we > want it to be specified to make sure that interoperability was maximized? Sorry for the confusion--that last paragraph was just about AUTH_SYS, not about user/group-naming. Sure, I'd be happy to propose changes to the user/group-naming (which is all in section 5.8 of 3530, I think, or is there some scattered elsewhere?) --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
