IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08: (with COMMENT)

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Thu, 02 July 2020 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.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 D5FDA3A0D69; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.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 IaGTXQ81CQqI; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp2130.oracle.com (userp2130.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10F963A0D67; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 062IHdwY181053; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:26:27 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=cjsBShPKL/Kf0uHBV6ojwA6gOsxZlak2mdE+uwqoNvw=; b=DM9RNyQ/6VBpMxWQc8EbCX5occWjMiQ1txBRugzNTPk6nbRMjtVVItW4E1p7A2sXfkp7 ugz3fj+X+SNvlLNVCkTtzn5oONXS7DhXRY7WUUZ7SozUCGR+F/rVm6be8vtwSwCSzAVz T8oWBOwarQO8LxHtRo5EPLZs6aCyJdojklhLoQuuIT+rApqzTwGvnrhFOLznGsvn1Ctd KUcQ4SXoxlGVOjzCXyxGhE72/mF2a7G+OhH43stmqyishzkc7rzRjTqTChalQOoI2jtk BG2gTgx72V0j5k8vEz0UR2LxKhydGcIZL4I2zQB6tnGZT5E3wzQWL5rOHqhW3668/K19 5w==
Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 31ywrc08p3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:26:27 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 062ICfuA193394; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:26:27 GMT
Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 31xfvw1qda-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:26:26 +0000
Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 062IQPPL017601; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:26:26 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-153.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:26:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriV3F2f+Tk8QWaWie4DB55on0rG7Knip+bAvZzZyBR+T3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 14:26:24 -0400
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <37E9EC4E-938D-4986-895F-8EFA85469DB1@oracle.com>
References: <159349149991.12516.12036430886387047884@ietfa.amsl.com> <FEE410F9-240F-4401-99CF-A2FC54DFE095@oracle.com> <CAMGpriWpER-pzH+Nfer=OSZKbU-cUJ9Arqsk1rxZU-72dWy1sg@mail.gmail.com> <AA6DCFBF-2B7E-45FE-B770-22B4E3B68446@oracle.com> <CAMGpriV3F2f+Tk8QWaWie4DB55on0rG7Knip+bAvZzZyBR+T3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9670 signatures=668680
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007020124
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9670 signatures=668680
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 cotscore=-2147483648 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007020124
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/JrDE1AoMrZdLbfEjftFiDykchVk>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Jul 2020 18:26:31 -0000


> On Jul 2, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:30 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Erik-
>> 

> I was more curious about text for how a TCP RPC server identifies TLS
> ClientHello from the first of possibly several unencrypted RPCs after
> the 3WHS.  And it seems like the same "try to parse a ClientHello else
> try to parse an ONC RPC message"  is the recommended approach
> (analogous to DTLS above)?  It was a statement to this effect that I
> was after.


Understood. I'll propose something in a follow-up e-mail.


>> I hope the following change addresses the grammar error you noticed:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> 
>>   When operation is complete, an RPC peer terminates a TLS session by
>>   sending a TLS Closure Alert and may then close the TCP connection.
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 
>>   When operation is complete, an RPC peer terminates a TLS session by
>>   sending a TLS Closure Alert.  It may then close the TCP connection.
> 
> I was thinking of something like s/When operation is complete/When all
> operations are complete/.
> 
> Sort of related: I'm not sufficiently familiar with RPC over TCP: does
> a client ever close a TCP session while there are RPCs in flight (i.e.
> as a matter of normal operations and not extraordinary circumstances)?
> If so, "... are complete" above might not be strictly correct.  I'll
> defer to y'all.

Either peer is permitted to close a TCP connection while there are
outstanding RPC transactions.


--
Chuck Lever

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status