Why was POSIX.1e withdrawn?
The proposed POSIX.1e standard defines a few things like ACLs that are widely supported. But the proposal itself was withdrawn. How come? The only reasoning I've found online is this quote from http://wt.tuxomania.net/topics/1999_06_Posix_1e/:
Why Posix.1e was abandoned is difficult to understand from today's
(July 2014) point of view. Solaris, Irix, Linux, and probably other
Unices seemed to recognize the standard. On the other hand the FreeBSD
project found counter arguments and didn't integrate capabilities
('fine grained privileges') by default.
On the other hand, Jörg Schilling said this on this site (What is the exact purpose of `mask` in file system ACL?)
BTW: The POSIX-1003.1 draft for ACLs has been withdrawn in 1997 by the
reference implementations (a.g. Solaris) because it turned out that
customers wanted a more powerful method that has later been
standardized as NVSv4 ACLs.
Is there a more detailed account of what happened?
posix history acl
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
add a comment |
The proposed POSIX.1e standard defines a few things like ACLs that are widely supported. But the proposal itself was withdrawn. How come? The only reasoning I've found online is this quote from http://wt.tuxomania.net/topics/1999_06_Posix_1e/:
Why Posix.1e was abandoned is difficult to understand from today's
(July 2014) point of view. Solaris, Irix, Linux, and probably other
Unices seemed to recognize the standard. On the other hand the FreeBSD
project found counter arguments and didn't integrate capabilities
('fine grained privileges') by default.
On the other hand, Jörg Schilling said this on this site (What is the exact purpose of `mask` in file system ACL?)
BTW: The POSIX-1003.1 draft for ACLs has been withdrawn in 1997 by the
reference implementations (a.g. Solaris) because it turned out that
customers wanted a more powerful method that has later been
standardized as NVSv4 ACLs.
Is there a more detailed account of what happened?
posix history acl
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
add a comment |
The proposed POSIX.1e standard defines a few things like ACLs that are widely supported. But the proposal itself was withdrawn. How come? The only reasoning I've found online is this quote from http://wt.tuxomania.net/topics/1999_06_Posix_1e/:
Why Posix.1e was abandoned is difficult to understand from today's
(July 2014) point of view. Solaris, Irix, Linux, and probably other
Unices seemed to recognize the standard. On the other hand the FreeBSD
project found counter arguments and didn't integrate capabilities
('fine grained privileges') by default.
On the other hand, Jörg Schilling said this on this site (What is the exact purpose of `mask` in file system ACL?)
BTW: The POSIX-1003.1 draft for ACLs has been withdrawn in 1997 by the
reference implementations (a.g. Solaris) because it turned out that
customers wanted a more powerful method that has later been
standardized as NVSv4 ACLs.
Is there a more detailed account of what happened?
posix history acl
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
The proposed POSIX.1e standard defines a few things like ACLs that are widely supported. But the proposal itself was withdrawn. How come? The only reasoning I've found online is this quote from http://wt.tuxomania.net/topics/1999_06_Posix_1e/:
Why Posix.1e was abandoned is difficult to understand from today's
(July 2014) point of view. Solaris, Irix, Linux, and probably other
Unices seemed to recognize the standard. On the other hand the FreeBSD
project found counter arguments and didn't integrate capabilities
('fine grained privileges') by default.
On the other hand, Jörg Schilling said this on this site (What is the exact purpose of `mask` in file system ACL?)
BTW: The POSIX-1003.1 draft for ACLs has been withdrawn in 1997 by the
reference implementations (a.g. Solaris) because it turned out that
customers wanted a more powerful method that has later been
standardized as NVSv4 ACLs.
Is there a more detailed account of what happened?
posix history acl
posix history acl
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
asked Dec 19 '18 at 4:32
Tavian BarnesTavian Barnes
314211
314211
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I seem to have hit paydirt here. I searched the "usual haunts" and found nada, then thought, hey, where in the good 'ole days would *NIX freaks post about this stuff?
Usenet. They would post on Usenet. On April 30, 2002, Casey Schauffler wrote:
I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
to that.
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489820%2fwhy-was-posix-1e-withdrawn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I seem to have hit paydirt here. I searched the "usual haunts" and found nada, then thought, hey, where in the good 'ole days would *NIX freaks post about this stuff?
Usenet. They would post on Usenet. On April 30, 2002, Casey Schauffler wrote:
I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
to that.
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I seem to have hit paydirt here. I searched the "usual haunts" and found nada, then thought, hey, where in the good 'ole days would *NIX freaks post about this stuff?
Usenet. They would post on Usenet. On April 30, 2002, Casey Schauffler wrote:
I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
to that.
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I seem to have hit paydirt here. I searched the "usual haunts" and found nada, then thought, hey, where in the good 'ole days would *NIX freaks post about this stuff?
Usenet. They would post on Usenet. On April 30, 2002, Casey Schauffler wrote:
I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
to that.
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I seem to have hit paydirt here. I searched the "usual haunts" and found nada, then thought, hey, where in the good 'ole days would *NIX freaks post about this stuff?
Usenet. They would post on Usenet. On April 30, 2002, Casey Schauffler wrote:
I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
to that.
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
answered 1 hour ago
wurtzkurdlewurtzkurdle
865
865
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
wurtzkurdle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
impressive sleuthing. USENET is a beast from the past, although some of us still use it. :)
– Tim Kennedy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489820%2fwhy-was-posix-1e-withdrawn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
