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

Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <loghyr@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 319E212EB0F; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 FR4zNRAkIjes; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x243.google.com (mail-pg0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::243]) (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 4BF4012EB04; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x243.google.com with SMTP id s9so6091379pgq.13; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:13 -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=Als8YH9dWeoziXijuQp/Vu39ReBwmZsF8DfAXGbXmHQ=; b=ISlKJbf6DB5NbNJvalBLWZrwXw4zITC3ohxC7K1YsK9ySUzxzyECB7pKMtbe23SwOH vbCeq2+YfREINxiqaqakM4e1Vb+iKjhXilwosObkuGDw637EwGf84n2nLl+RtFy6LMf4 7rGhBUGbvOFTqvqlkkVIAbbWjsTYnqA/9bIuPEMzkeycN6OqpXJ/I57HQn/5Hpn8BHep G7M6+BrAquLOAzzvmK2S+dizc0gKFWhUWjJdAvs6aWxYakprbFRiXl4zqeFNt4IemDUt NmYS2I1by7yuuk0bYqDY0mnswLZoCM2kXS6KDX0hMzEBqDzKkZeoq9imkt4STQuVKr6h V+tQ==
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=Als8YH9dWeoziXijuQp/Vu39ReBwmZsF8DfAXGbXmHQ=; b=btx4UwAFQygarEa0SRIYvpzmb3tWUrq3FD+e7zbSVZNKOwPQh6REgnlKaZnA7AgjTo pbbaVwTHfpzhlsEzqQ7FQ9LQ6A8AdlC1WTV+Ld/b/zTVXkeD24NQnGq348MbZdOberU3 z3feVGmmfqlLGzlA8wygoOT27v6Bl6LAdV+UVc4m6Y0ofBk22EEbkdCQ8Dpw6ZroLHBD UWvRGCkxevUH4p4b7WVpMrGsVcBSUU26Oz855QNoKMbkbbbgDjILv2qAONkNQLRNeYwM jgpFfttWJJYnLwSL7YyPywz6DHN2crUILdq22tL8P0amCqCE6/QgAT8T2eapI88re7m2 fBZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfaZKS1L26laySn7zw5XvSqogzWEbN5CEtygEir1mgK9kGXsjEU I2Qgt8K6KfQeMxu/rqkig3E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224OrqoVuJEuZMlnuhTfdZ01fEKk41q1/iROy3io+MFLb6TXhzY32ol9it7orX/Qyyodkc+N5w==
X-Received: by 10.98.65.13 with SMTP id o13mr17206506pfa.97.1516924272486; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kinslayer.corp.primarydata.com (63-157-6-18.dia.static.qwest.net. [63.157.6.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v81sm17783744pfi.65.2018.01.25.15.51.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH5apYh+RrMVkTVC0ymr=9z2H8bfuPdxZrtDJNj0=igS1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:51:10 -0800
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: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8DD17F8E-896C-47AE-89D8-E3C1A3236299@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> <CAKKJt-eGCDfzCenjHXCJ7TDAWdxNMaqxSa3LR8XbZYM5PcHDDQ@mail.gmail.com> <0E53C7DA-1BD9-4C23-90D6-B1F072D7D111@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH5apYh+RrMVkTVC0ymr=9z2H8bfuPdxZrtDJNj0=igS1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/G5QZySeofWq_Eu1_YNzH6Bjhktg>
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 23:51:21 -0000

Hi Kathleen,

It is posted, thanks for the review.

Tom

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Please let me know when you post the new version.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
> 
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:47 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, Thomas,
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2018 1:56 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 ….
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> We will likely chat about this on today's telechat, but I read Kathleen's
>> response as "no, it doesn't have to be MUST".
>> 
>> The switch between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED was probably not significant. I
>> don't think there's a difference,  either.
>> 
>> Spencer
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Spencer,
>> 
>> Great, as Kathleen has ack’ed the proposed change, I went with it.
>> 
>> Thanks to both of you!
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen