IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 09 April 2015 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 342EA1A1AC6; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Gd-2x68O7WPI; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (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 A9BB81B2E2E; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iget9 with SMTP id t9so51423830ige.1; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vvvfno1YkyFMxml7ljJqAmwKuXabFdbnCYkCBuiBmEQ=; b=xPZ+pRjCuYVESuZTbkQEbN1w1JKYPXS5OtrZvIoLTWucp5wbUQx4A0dL4HFLd2QWk2 toi6sJvo948r07jz/VASoKU4R/baPCKOipCXmNKtESz8IvxgEpM5/hvQcaayhBNus847 USuffcpr29BLW9kYeqOHupZJAbd22rwCm2zR1vJSlzkPavxuC/gw0sQTVcSbMwN4bOBH U9ydBcf3ZdipWiKrbGvvE9NWSCpHGljRF3km0bOJveQ723Dci5KWV6+vVFwfJFVx9mxe iUXdJvjFnGxb5KbkSbr1lwtF13pq5Nd0m1ohFHSGNHVappZTMn7aztgRLCtmj8h7EB8a dUzA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.207.206 with SMTP id fz14mr40896880icb.34.1428594672195; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <44423013-37AF-4E25-BF1A-92C671DBF2BE@gmail.com>
References: <20150407154310.383.14870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD39596-FC66-492E-9E5B-1C2866632295@primarydata.com> <D94C6AB3-D072-4D76-9A43-0362BDA83B18@primarydata.com> <ED37251F-453E-4379-9E9B-6D8E75BC9E99@gmail.com> <DF1E4044-7D42-4715-891F-4D32B8A0F4F9@primarydata.com> <44423013-37AF-4E25-BF1A-92C671DBF2BE@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:51:12 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KsVzeBN9YJrSeDf0sbnibSL3wS0
Message-ID: <CALaySJJLzNxejpUQTnbftHD63T=GLmp8AL-y0ySCoXF35-du+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/Qe9G1_3uLg_yiU0U6fLEHn40QWY>
Cc: 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 15:52:17 -0000

>> 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.
>
> That text looks great to me.

And to me.  Pop that in, and I'll clear the discuss tout de suite.

Thanks!

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email