Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS)

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:47 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Thomas,
> 
> On Jan 25, 2018 1:56 AM, "Thomas Haynes" <loghyr@gmail.com <mailto:loghyr@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Cool.
>> 
>> On Jan 24, 2018 20:29, "Kathleen Moriarty" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> First off, I was less concerned about this point than the proposed
>> text discussed and other points. Having said that...
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > Kathleen and EKR,
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 24, 2018 16:25, "Tom Haynes" <loghyr@gmail.com <mailto:loghyr@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I purposely did not update the document to avoid confusion during this
>> > process.
>> >
>> > There was an unanswered question in my last reply, namely concerning the use
>> > of SHOULD versus MUST in the 3rd sentence below:
>> >
>> >    It is RECOMMENDED to implement common access control methods at the
>> >    storage device filesystem to allow only the metadata server root
>> >    (super user) access to the storage device, and to set the owner of
>> >    all directories holding data files to the root user.  This approach
>> >    provides a practical model to enforce access control and fence off
>> >    cooperative clients, but it can not protect against malicious
>> >    clients; hence it provides a level of security equivalent to
>> >    AUTH_SYS.  Communications between the metadata server and file server
>> >    SHOULD be secure from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle protocol
>> >    tampering.  The security measure could be due to physical security
>> >    (e.g., the servers are co-located in a physically secure area), from
>> >    encrypted communications, or some other technique.
>> >
>> 
>> I think rephrasing to RECOMMENDED would be good here.
> 
> Hi Kathleen,
> 
> I think you are proposing:
> 
> It is RECOMMENDED that the communication between the metadata server and storage device be secure ….
> 
> 
>> 
>> So, Thomas, do you have any more questions I should be chasing?
>> 
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> 
> Yes, what is the difference between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED? It must be a nuance I am missing...
> 
> From RFC2119, I don’t see the difference.
> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> BTW - the text above is from the proposed 16th copy of the draft. Once we get past this issue,
> I will submit it.
> 
> We will likely chat about this on today's telechat, but I read Kathleen's response as "no, it doesn't have to be MUST".
> 
> The switch between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED was probably not significant. I don't think there's a difference,  either.
> 
> Spencer
> 

Hi Spencer,

Great, as Kathleen has ack’ed the proposed change, I went with it.

Thanks to both of you!
Tom

> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> 
>> Spencer
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>> 
>> >
>> >> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
>> >> <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> >> draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: Discuss
>> >>
>> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> DISCUSS:
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your response to the SecDir review.  I see the proposed changes
>> >> have
>> >> not been integrated yet.  This discuss will be resolved when the SecDir
>> >> review
>> >> changes have been included.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I purposely did not update the document to avoid confusion during this
>> > process.
>> >
>> > There was an unanswered question in my last reply, namely concerning the use
>> > of SHOULD versus MUST in the 3rd sentence below:
>> >
>> >    It is RECOMMENDED to implement common access control methods at the
>> >    storage device filesystem to allow only the metadata server root
>> >    (super user) access to the storage device, and to set the owner of
>> >    all directories holding data files to the root user.  This approach
>> >    provides a practical model to enforce access control and fence off
>> >    cooperative clients, but it can not protect against malicious
>> >    clients; hence it provides a level of security equivalent to
>> >    AUTH_SYS.  Communications between the metadata server and file server
>> >    SHOULD be secure from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle protocol
>> >    tampering.  The security measure could be due to physical security
>> >    (e.g., the servers are co-located in a physically secure area), from
>> >    encrypted communications, or some other technique.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you folks have any thoughts about whether "secure from eavesdroppers"
>> > ought to be SHOULD or MUST?
>> >
>> > IIUC, Thomas was reluctant to specify MUST ... and since we're saying that
>> > co-location in a secure area is one of the options, I'm not sure why this
>> > would be either SHOULD or MUST in the first place.
>> >
>> > Conformance test cases for that requirement would be a riot ... :-)
>> >
>> > Spencer
>> >
>> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HKdT2KjnWJFmzEPxlGcNH0OnUDg <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HKdT2KjnWJFmzEPxlGcNH0OnUDg>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> nfsv4 mailing list
>> >> nfsv4@ietf.org <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfsv4 mailing list
>> > nfsv4@ietf.org <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
> 
> 