IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 438161294B8; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 zqn9548Ai8Sc; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 068BF128990; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90061C002827; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=fOyeFts0oDR0+p 0bR32tE0CG5/8=; b=lE/XVBKq+Pn0oSr0gzoqlHyMb6oef9M8qBml2772/tjuCx ID0BJEgQnRBlA3BXn33yCXuFHoyCvE7GyvLe8x9zLrm5OMjqAPHnbe+IAYt5VsPn fmQP/T1CmZB1XlN8b33iMbm/b4yn0snbon7dDpnLTuNkMIx/K8mnprUtCmBXg=
Received: from localhost (cpe-70-123-158-140.austin.res.rr.com [70.123.158.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91209C002821; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:00:33 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170606160032.GC3432@localhost>
References: <CAMm+Lwh+E+BsATQmmX6ccJou-sz1XNtFHxQZikohYCeT0qkfdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-fsJ1UinNiW2LitxVQT4M1YqnFF+1cygU132=bQNgiUnA@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jd+6gN2H0QWC+dM-e3pb1gUJKLE7=8PPpprGGKBQZhueg@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cnd0L2o2Db6OA1Uvp-C+geA+Ju-7E8Yo=OKS1V3P4G8sA@mail.gmail.com> <20170605165254.GE2903@localhost> <CADaq8jcOD8eodG6-jguvy3xytMkAwBhmWUTxF-eXhjxZGymXGA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jcOD8eodG6-jguvy3xytMkAwBhmWUTxF-eXhjxZGymXGA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/FTJXLwj-v2HHBsWe84U176kjsI8>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:00:44 -0000

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:21:13AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> > A more complete analysis of RPCSEC_GSS should really not be
> > done in the context of this I-D.
> 
> I agree that it should not, but it is not clear exactly what is being
> asked for to get this document into the RFC editing process.  Unlike

It's a secdir review.  It plays no official part in the publication
process.  It is merely a review meant to aid the IESG.

> xattrs, this document actually has been approved.  The state is listed
> as "Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed"
> so we know it has been approved but are unclear about why this has not
> been announced, what exactly the point raised might be and how the
> issue/point is to be resolved.

The secdir review may simply have been too late.  But it's still worth
responding to, which I have.

I took up this sub-thread because I'm familiar enough with the subject
so I can, and because I think Phillip and Watson deserve getting answers
on this even if there's no procedural need to provide them.

> I think the authors are entitled to a clearer treatment of these matters.

So are non-NFSv4 WG participants in this thread.  It's not every day you
get a free analysis of your protocol by folks like Watson.  Rejoice.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email