Late Last Call + Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-10

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document..........:  draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-10
Reviewer..........:  Christian Vogt
Review date.......:  December 11, 2008
IESG Telechat date:  December 11, 2008

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
          that should be fixed before publication.

Document draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-10 is an update of the "Remote
Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2", RFC 1831.  It seeks to
promote the RPC protocol to draft standard.  The document is overall in
good quality.

However, one aspect where I found the document to be insufficient is in
the specification of security methods.  The documents does list possible
security methods, but it neither specifies them, nor does it state a
mandatory-to-support method other than null-authentication.  I am aware
that the predecessor document, RFC 1831 also did not attend to security
methods any more carefully.  But the security-related requirements for
IETF documents have become stricter since the publication of the
predecessor document in 1995, which implies that this document would
need to pay more attention to security-related aspects.

Suggestion:  Could the list of possible security methods (alias
"security flavors") be limited to those for which there are clear
protocol specifications?  E.g., one of the possible methods, AUTH_DH,
currently refers to an academic publication rather than a protocol
specification.  That's insufficient.  And could one of the non-null
security methods be made mandatory?

- Christian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf