[nfsv4] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-05: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

No worries!  I went back and looked all of this up (this is not exactly my
area of expertise).

Your proposed fix is perfect.

Thanks for the email!

Deb Cooley

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:47 PM Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Deb,
>
> Sorry, I missed this review and just found it.
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-05: No Objection
> >
> > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Section 5:  Security Considerations:   It seems odd to me that allowing
> the DS
> > and MDS on different servers doesn't drive a security concern.  Given
> this
> > draft is a refinement to RFC8435, do the security considerations from
> that RFC
> > apply to this draft?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Would this address your concerns:
>
> There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC7862].
>
> Becomes:
>
> There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC8435].
>
>
> >
> > Thanks to Ben Schwartz for his secdir review, and to Carsten Bormann, who
> > parenthetically alludes to this situation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>