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

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.

> 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.

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HKdT2KjnWJFmzEPxlGcNH0OnUDg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4