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

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E16312DA22; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZmsiTn2630pv; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE9412DA12; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id z10so18396282qti.5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HyRGgtr2EfIg2yGnQaEu82hejpMAnZx5ECyScA884WM=; b=hkHSTCuDMfEN5s2OItrz3BOkjglczxG44bQeDH35ldS2/HjtKP5g9AZ9BHOpbS/sel QdSGLmOYB2Ty9bGcjz/gH40tGS4fFN9y2KPTGNsM6rmr1sSkS3Dqgwp43f9LOY9lUEuJ a24x2VULVhMvyHVYwb7o6k1S/yqCE1Dcnzxv+T//pweI7YyU+roIDVdASZctvPwcTRpB DaE5SBARrU2HhxIY1F3cEmkrNygtbtznb65bAcDTKj/f/VnfdSjLkPGZlg/WVhGmHUTI plBygzxHcX/fu8dy6nxXnh+5V5jbX5URljq/yMTjQr4pE7RdbdlEEfJ6kBLfVm3wcc1R 0tXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HyRGgtr2EfIg2yGnQaEu82hejpMAnZx5ECyScA884WM=; b=SbbyU2wGwn/kOJU++gjlfVpcW4MlU6w8LZqxnNdgXX/9J6HTffn2EFkuDjFNDNuUEF wDJ/4i5346pOzrvkJN6k+a0XAR9VcrOpyHC9mjGGZT8G0knHt17DMV7MI3FCHfokk6py FNDY6L3acFeqOl7Xx6CPvhyxpHcA3TnpoYde6wpxKd4FijIbI5pxxRtbKPPUdtu43JPY i61bKz9No6yPOrDhmkUkwUuuaFQ2uitNIK32tg/FtmuQadkibGZq1irnxik/HrLvXDc/ FuB+Zlp7UtiTptCUPk/FUVtTebeDuAImmYzT4XDcIgVqn/HzzTy+wOSj0pLIfnVwlzIK Bw+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcz59/EPAzjxQP7uEL1c+g4jH+72liSasEBjXV4dAPfDk8QFdO9 pogjPTHiHtgB8aM9qvVnDFhpvOXB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2254hW5j1UKdUyw3pEol4I8CQ9vx+2zLibgL+bStVCV4A5kKVb3RRiJ6Czf+4EokZI5UMZZxjg==
X-Received: by 10.237.33.208 with SMTP id m16mr16399876qtc.30.1516880704176; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.219] (209-6-112-84.s338.c3-0.arl-cbr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcncustomer.com. [209.6.112.84]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm3781234qtj.80.2018.01.25.03.45.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7DFBB206-C962-48FF-961A-9A8C7AA59C00
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C202)
In-Reply-To: <831A94C5-B235-4000-B2AF-CFF3E5198AF9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:45:02 -0500
Cc: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <EEDC3972-3501-4C74-BAFA-7C8D324EDA4B@gmail.com>
References: <151681212064.22573.802639868783000012.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <49F618BA-9ED0-4DB9-BA4F-C96D7568C2F8@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-e0oaUAGFip51JmPikU0OHz7eWZfUbiTvqC0ghWa3KVWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH5P-1cgeWbEnFg4He-1ED8TSbx=-NF=SHBckAT2W0Tg_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dEGdsBb79HLK1ZAzdmT26BHUhLRBaGy3rfWVENBW3eFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cdiQFYqEYJSW7xjiSoFvHmP67kpgyq3Wj3MHC7dC20AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dUKQuKdr4Zg78UCad-h6hRqcijwZT=QxEEqWzTPGfyVQ@mail.gmail.com> <831A94C5-B235-4000-B2AF-CFF3E5198AF9@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/AF9n8i6g400SctNqyWBK7AXDqxk>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:45:09 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Sent from my mobile device

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:56 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 ….
> 
Yes, thank you!
Kathleen 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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
>