IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [nfsv4] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-07

worley@ariadne.com Thu, 28 May 2020 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F483A0B53 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 20:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-sgpmS0h2jb for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62013A0B57 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.106]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id e8n8j2vugUcAre8rLjnUfY; Thu, 28 May 2020 03:05:31 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1590635131; bh=rIizx90bk8MH5Ep/VwMo6KaQJ7M8NW/aVx5Snkc90M0=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=qUDeIyVz/GkbOaTkecGFlo7ILZKiAjprDkrBHVP2s9Vq/4/i4rgQNomrnM5L2y1Qx O+UXr+szGXcWTpBdTM7RUmVhkJxQnENKDxMU6QCzmX6dRsDb1OajLPeEBGVs0J4jzg YYqfhlZ3jf/uMOZIucxdEtCgLRYPbs0ZBqM9ZJesn9yp1OIUhF2l/sDBcK4Uu1yvH+ p0Oh6D8B7zNMBjFcXuxq/ZiVrrNdhn3Gxz+6xhJY/B+xFrN7tzZ89TJbJjN7g59sdR RGBK9JNv4SC5KMZSiNoOo0YMVGRQvLsvnzewyabpHk5KDgDH+oPBX6n2CMRz+9S3GL uN7eQ5dClx4XA==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id e8rJj8EEVWhYwe8rKjueHC; Thu, 28 May 2020 03:05:31 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04S35TFW025305; Wed, 27 May 2020 23:05:29 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 04S35T24025302; Wed, 27 May 2020 23:05:29 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: davenoveck@gmail.com, gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0AA91E8D-A743-4730-A319-10A556C985C5@oracle.com> (chuck.lever@oracle.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 23:05:28 -0400
Message-ID: <87mu5siwsn.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/9CPQOQmj0bB6gsAHnah9hELKZCM>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [nfsv4] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 03:05:34 -0000

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> writes:
> I'm not comfortable citing an NFSv4 document to define a term used in
> a document that discusses a generic RPC transport. To me that feels an
> awful lot like a layering violation.

If doing that would be a layering violation, then this passage is also a
layering violation:

   To protect backchannel operations, an RPC server uses the
   existing TLS session on that connection to send backchannel
   operations.  The server does not attempt to establish a TLS session
   on a TCP connection for backchannel operation.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email