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

Hi Tom,

Please let me know when you post the new version.

Thanks,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> On Jan 24, 2018 20:29, "Kathleen Moriarty"
> <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> wrote:
>> Kathleen and EKR,
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2018 16:25, "Tom Haynes" <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> 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
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfsv4 mailing list
>>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfsv4 mailing list
>> nfsv4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen