Nicolas Williams wrote:
> IMO it shouldn't just be a matter of feature parity with Windows.
>
> Think Solaris TX, for example. But also, why not make the feature
> available in more contexts if it makes sense (either because it makes
> sense by itself or to avoid circumvention).
Because it costs
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:23:10PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote:
> You know, I think the real answer to that question needs to be based on
> whether we think that ABE is an all-around useful feature, or just
> something we need for feature parity with other Windows file servers.
>
> If it's an all-
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:07:02PM -0700, Alan M Wright wrote:
> On 04/23/09 15:39, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >What I meant was that if we don't have this feature in NFS then we
> >should document that sharing with CIFS w/ ABE and NFS allows users to
> >circumvent ABE by using NFS, that if you want
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:35:32PM -0700, Alan M Wright wrote:
> On 04/23/09 09:12, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >In general I would think that we ought to aim for feature parity between
> >the CIFS service and the NFS service for any features that could be
> >applicable to both. With some obvious ex
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:35:32PM -0700, Alan M Wright wrote:
> On 04/23/09 09:12, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >More to the point: if only the CIFS service has this feature then it
> >follows that enabling ABE on a share ought to disable NFS service for
> >that share as otherwise users could use NFS
On 04/23/09 16:45, Alan M Wright wrote:
> That's a good point - ABE is not a security feature per se.
>
> While "out of sight, out of mind" may be desirable it doesn't supplant
> the need to set the appropriate ACLs and security measures to enforce
> the desired security policy.
Also, even if you
That's a good point - ABE is not a security feature per se.
While "out of sight, out of mind" may be desirable it doesn't supplant
the need to set the appropriate ACLs and security measures to enforce
the desired security policy.
Alan
On 04/23/09 16:37, Afshin Salek wrote:
> Note that, even if t
Note that, even if this is a file system setting there's still no
guarantee that the same user gets the same view over different
protocols or locally. At least it wouldn't be the case for CIFS
against the rest of methods because when connecting over CIFS a
user would also have his/her Windows group
On 04/23/09 16:20, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:07:02PM -0700, Alan M Wright wrote:
>> On 04/23/09 15:39, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> What I meant was that if we don't have this feature in NFS then we
>>> should document that sharing with CIFS w/ ABE and NFS allows users to
Alan M Wright wrote:
>> The next question is whether it makes sense for ABE to be a share-level
>> option or a dataset property or directory xattr. I think the latter is
>> more appropriate if CIFS and NFS will both support ABE...
>
> We covered that in earlier discussion of this case.
You know,
All,
The timer having expired and having received the required +1
I am closing this case as approved.
Thanks,
John
Margot Miller wrote:
> +1
>
> Margot
>
>
> John Fischer wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Attached is the updated man page for this case.
>> I have put this in the case directory as well.
>>
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> The next question is whether it makes sense for ABE to be a share-level
> option or a dataset property or directory xattr. I think the latter is
> more appropriate if CIFS and NFS will both support ABE...
Or perhaps both, in the same way that there are ACLs both in the f
On 04/23/09 15:39, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:35:32PM -0700, Alan M Wright wrote:
>> On 04/23/09 09:12, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> More to the point: if only the CIFS service has this feature then it
>>> follows that enabling ABE on a share ought to disable NFS service fo
On 04/23/09 09:12, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:04:21AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> Any reason not to add a corresponding option to the NFS server when the
>> CIFS case comes along?
>
> More to the point: if only the CIFS service has this feature then it
> follows tha
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/announcements/
OpenSolaris ARC Agenda
TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:
(866)545-5223 (Within US)
(215) 446-3661 (International)
ACCESS CODE 939-55-86
Times are US/Pacific Timezone
ARC meetings are recorded.
TUESDAY April 28, 2009
10:00-10:10 Open ARC Business
On 04/23/09 13:28, Erwin T Tsaur wrote:
> On 04/23/09 11:26, Gary Winiger wrote:
> My recollection from 2005/232 was there was a discussion
> about non-standard install places. How was that resolved?
>
> I wasn't part of that discussion back then. Not sure what that
>
On 04/23/09 11:26, Gary Winiger wrote:
My recollection from 2005/232 was there was a discussion
about non-standard install places. How was that resolved?
I wasn't part of that discussion back then. Not sure what that would be
about.
>>>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> I'm happy with the case as specified and I understand the rationale for
> the low interface taxonomy assignment.
Given your +1 and that the timer has expired I've marked the case as
approved.
Nico
--
> >>My recollection from 2005/232 was there was a discussion
> >>about non-standard install places. How was that resolved?
> >>
> >> I wasn't part of that discussion back then. Not sure what that would be
> >> about.
> >>
> >
> > As the project is largely relying on that case wi
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:04:21AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Any reason not to add a corresponding option to the NFS server when the
> CIFS case comes along?
More to the point: if only the CIFS service has this feature then it
follows that enabling ABE on a share ought to disable NFS servic
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:36:32 -0400
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> It's really more of a nitpick. I just see some weird conversations like
>
> Customer: "I'm using this LSI SAS controller so I use mpt_sas, right?"
> Sun Tech: "No you use mpt."
> Customer: "Huh? What's the difference"
>
I'm happy with the case as specified given the constraints imposed by SMF.
--
Darren J Moffat
Materials for the case have been placed in the case directory.
/
/Darren Reed wrote:
> Aarti,
>
> Please update the agenda for the 29th of April to have the review of
> PSARC/2009/232 scheduled for that meeting.
>
> Darren
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
