IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC5C1ACC88; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 OxlcL5zcZ-IM; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 D490E1A1A8B; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgej70 with SMTP id j70so34629156qge.2; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JFMyAQEishzgN46bEP8OmyOVl1yx1V8Sk0xpzQfeIx8=; b=ZBPy5+vBVOegIaViybOoIFtrvaLK9YZ9+TIHEZnpQK8Md/c0Vb2xPu3eln+i4rceap LkyCdystaswP15kMZSx9UFhB5iLu8ehc71MfErcp6ApfSIOm8jk54tCtCdg8GI8Fhf5g m7//tv77lokJ+7aewxvwuX79ytxOiYxpQygHwwcidXxKeMfGvQIl0EL6HredTG6UwZZ1 xW0DPYTlMrV2eaUUY9mrB9xkLyB/2upsOaAaxiLRfVfxf/jMf9If08ft6jlyyQL+8FvM pUk1nxLxPHEyBDX9JLw6myLuVmtAEBUOzZdY+cldKrwRO0PzNJZhnxiXTkWxi8+oYJ8n 21XA==
X-Received: by 10.140.238.19 with SMTP id j19mr11734025qhc.87.1428583356173; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.20.16] (pool-108-28-244-112.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.244.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 10sm9631607qha.38.2015.04.09.05.42.35 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF1E4044-7D42-4715-891F-4D32B8A0F4F9@primarydata.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:42:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <44423013-37AF-4E25-BF1A-92C671DBF2BE@gmail.com>
References: <20150407154310.383.14870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD39596-FC66-492E-9E5B-1C2866632295@primarydata.com> <D94C6AB3-D072-4D76-9A43-0362BDA83B18@primarydata.com> <ED37251F-453E-4379-9E9B-6D8E75BC9E99@gmail.com> <DF1E4044-7D42-4715-891F-4D32B8A0F4F9@primarydata.com>
To: Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/BQwycOl5FRlo-8B_rU5qthPKAfU>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2015 12:42:38 -0000

> On 08  Apr 2015, at 21:21 , Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com> wrote:
> 
> New paragraph:
> 
> In reviewing the published label format specification, the Designated Expert
> should consider whether or not the specification provides sufficient
> semantics for the object and subject labels to enforce the MAC model
> and policy administration when deployed within an organization. Another
> consideration is if the label format allows a correct and complete
> implementation of the protocol to process and enforce labels as a
> policy administration mechanism. Finally, to reduce interoperability
> issues, the review must determine if the new label format specification
> has clearly defined syntax and semantics for the proposed new labels.

That text looks great to me.

Thanks very much,

Ran Atkinson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email