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 01:00 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 7686D1ACCF4; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:00:54 -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 GI_zB_153Rmz; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (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 8BAD71ACCF3; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkgx75 with SMTP id x75so103498634qkg.1; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:00:51 -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=bobDt9uDPBsldwZBlVfGt07/nELUiHzT1mWrttm7On8=; b=ZakQxohlYzzo+xqw5jZrYieLlE39VG5hg0JUqOVxilsotlyFNgb4qTeHrvdhMy2zlf Y2wBS2+v5kqrCaS+ixNlV8ce1dWbPlHxU54cSvpzIEonXrb3lQ6NaYO7WxiwGS5leqHx ZjBgR/7jWEa0d3bO6VVDqagRvW7ni/2+RkGEPRGlojWrAR1W/NsA9kehiUF7A5zxhU+l TaC9/ij1nRM7KaqvqHXRPLn5JU+Yea/y0OgocpqAOAr3PwFwkNkbqslcXKTJK4UQ2BL5 T9GFL8kyEs/koyMZhbC+GknH2RqbB0L6DbKNuZSWNwpkbW2xymnCuIsPRiwbx+v6r4WM Wpxg==
X-Received: by 10.140.151.197 with SMTP id 188mr27987742qhx.18.1428541251316; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:00:51 -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 r17sm8632665qkh.12.2015.04.08.18.00.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D94C6AB3-D072-4D76-9A43-0362BDA83B18@primarydata.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:00:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ED37251F-453E-4379-9E9B-6D8E75BC9E99@gmail.com>
References: <20150407154310.383.14870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD39596-FC66-492E-9E5B-1C2866632295@primarydata.com> <D94C6AB3-D072-4D76-9A43-0362BDA83B18@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/QOob12u1rI4FIYflXqcHTko_xnU>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ran Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, 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 01:00:54 -0000

> 
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email