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

[Tom Haynes <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 8, 2015, at 6:00 PM, RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> A new paragraph to be added after the one in Section 5.2:
>> 
>> 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 the given protocol to
>> process and enforce labels as a policy administration mechanism.
> 
> For the above proposal, I would suggest:
> 
>  s/the given protocol/a correct and complete implementation of the protocol/
> 
> This new paragraph probably also should say something about any
> proposed new label format specification having clearly defined 
> both the syntax & semantics of the proposed new label, not only
> the semantics of the label.  Without clear syntax rules, one could
> have interoperability issues.  (Been there, done that, and didn’t like
> the outcome with the several variants of CIPSO from the original 
> CIPSO I-D.)
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Ran
> 


Hi Ran,

Thanks for your comments, I was hoping you would have some suggestions
based on experience. :-)

Tom

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.