Re: [nfsv4] Protocol Action: 'RPCSEC_GSS Version 2' to Proposed Standard
Spencer Shepler <shepler@storspeed.com> Thu, 30 October 2008 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nfsv4-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-nfsv4-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE6C3A6A28; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8096F3A69E3 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7dVg-9j1KCWH for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.storspeed.com (mail.storspeed.com [209.163.168.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3173A6951 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.2.134] ([10.1.2.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.storspeed.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9UFcIUw045116 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:38:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from shepler@storspeed.com)
Message-Id: <4CCDCAD6-752E-47E6-A349-8F791F83EB3E@storspeed.com>
From: Spencer Shepler <shepler@storspeed.com>
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20081030140205.CF1203A6A6A@core3.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:40:22 -0500
References: <20081030140205.CF1203A6A6A@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Protocol Action: 'RPCSEC_GSS Version 2' to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org
Yeah! I would like to extend my thanks to everyone that participated in the creation of this work and to Mike for being editor of the I-D. Spencer On Oct 30, 2008, at 9:02 AM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has approved the following document: > > - 'RPCSEC_GSS Version 2 ' > <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > This document is the product of the Network File System Version 4 > Working > Group. > > The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus Westerlund. > > A URL of this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-06.txt > > Technical Summary > > RPCSEC_GSS version 2 (RPCSEC_GSSv2) is the same as RPCSEC_GSS > version 1 (RPCSEC_GSSv1) except that support for channel > bindings has been added. The primary motivation for channel > bindings is to securely take advantage of hardware assisted > encryption that might exist at lower levels of the networking > protocol stack, such as at the Internet Protocol (IP) layer > in the form of IPsec. The secondary motivation is that even > if lower levels are not any more efficient at encryption than > the RPCSEC_GSS layer, if encryption is occurring at the lower > level, it can be redundant at the RPCSEC_GSS level. > > Working Group Summary > > The working group development and review of this work was > straightforward. The motivation is well understood and > agreed upon and no major issues were identified or impeded > progress during document review. > > Document Quality > > No existing implementations yet exist but given the author > and reviewers are knowledgeable about more than one > implementation of the current RPCSEC_GSS protocol, it is > believed that the quality of this work is to be considered > "high". > > Personnel > > Spencer Shepler (spencer.shepler@gmail.com) is the Document > Shepherd. Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) reviewed this > document for the IESG. > _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
- [nfsv4] Protocol Action: 'RPCSEC_GSS Version 2' t… The IESG
- Re: [nfsv4] Protocol Action: 'RPCSEC_GSS Version … Spencer Shepler