IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-quigley-nfsv4-lfs-registry-00 a WG item?

Spencer Shepler <sshepler@microsoft.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sshepler@microsoft.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 D62331A08BE for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 bIy47a1oMqh1 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0207.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9871A0957 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.89.12) by BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.89.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.929.12; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:40:36 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.89.12]) by BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.89.12]) with mapi id 15.00.0929.001; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:40:35 +0000
From: Spencer Shepler <sshepler@microsoft.com>
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>, "nfsv4 list (nfsv4@ietf.org)" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-quigley-nfsv4-lfs-registry-00 a WG item?
Thread-Index: AQHPZLKTes9TFdGhGEaPze0oXE+ouZsqnzZQ
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:40:35 +0000
Message-ID: <6c646e01f70d4b318b5d67bb42b898b7@BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6A71A3B1-A1FC-4AD7-B86F-E445CFC78C72@primarydata.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A71A3B1-A1FC-4AD7-B86F-E445CFC78C72@primarydata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ee31::2]
x-forefront-prvs: 0197AFBD92
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(164054003)(377454003)(77096999)(50986999)(2656002)(101416001)(54356999)(76176999)(31966008)(86362001)(86612001)(79102001)(99396002)(77982001)(81342001)(87936001)(83072002)(99286001)(74316001)(46102001)(4396001)(19580405001)(85852003)(83322001)(33646001)(20776003)(74662001)(80976001)(92566001)(74502001)(76576001)(76482001)(15975445006)(19580395003)(81542001)(80022001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB369; H:BL2PR03MB369.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:FC14C5D9.ACEA4552.71D27D4F.89F9D981.20346; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/QuKESPf28v0GvPyHTr_UF49yZJk
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-quigley-nfsv4-lfs-registry-00 a WG item?
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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:40:46 -0000

Yes, this seems appropriate.

If anyone believes this should NOT be done, please speak up.  Otherwise, Tom, wait a day for response and then submit an I-D with a WG name and I will approve and we will move forward from there.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfsv4 [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Haynes
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:27 PM
> To: nfsv4 list (nfsv4@ietf.org)
> Subject: [nfsv4] Can we make draft-quigley-nfsv4-lfs-registry-00 a WG item?
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> 
> Can we make this a WG item and proceed into WG Last Call?
> 
> Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label
> Formats
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    In the past Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very
>    rigid policies which were hardcoded into the particular protocol and
>    platform.  As MAC systems are more widely deployed additional
>    flexibility in mechanism and policy is required.  Where traditional
>    trusted systems implemented Multi-Level Security (MLS) and integrity
>    models, modern systems have expanded to include technologies such as
>    type enforcement.  Due to the wide range of policies and mechanisms
>    it has proven through past efforts to be virtually impossible to
>    accomodate all parties in one security label format and model.
> 
>    To allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats in a network, this
>    document proposes a registry of label format specifications.  This
>    registry contains several identifiers to accomodate both integer and
>    string preferences and associates those identifiers with an extensive
>    document outlining the exact syntax and use of the particular label
>    format.
> 
> This was draft-quigley-label-format-registry-02, where it languished out of
> sight.
> 
> The document is pretty short and is mainly a call for IANA to establish a new
> registry.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email