Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 14, 2020, at 6:46 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:50 PM Chuck Lever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Ben-
> 
> I'm nearly done with the new text. I need some clarification below.
> 
> 
> > On Jul 8, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >  
> 
> > Section 8.1
> > 
> > Isn't it codepoint squatting to claim auth flavor 7 before IANA has
> > allocated it?  (This is usually a Discuss-level issue, but that part is too
> > long already so I left it here.)
> 
> I agree it is slightly improper, but the authors were not aware of
> IANA's authority over RPC authentication flavors until late in the
> document's life cycle. It was a good faith oversight.
> 
> I think everyone  accepts that.
> 
> I believe we have IANA's permission at this point to use the value 7.
> 
> It's best to ask them.  If they don't agree, we can ask for an early allocation.

Quoting from IANA review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls in late May:

(BEGIN IANA COMMENTS)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. 

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the RPC Authentication Flavor Numbers registry on the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Authentication Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpc-authentication-numbers/ <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpc-authentication-numbers/>

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Identifier String: AUTH_TLS
Flavor Name: TLS
Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Signals the use of TLS to protect RPC messages on socket-based transports.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have requested a value of 7 for this registration.


"Permission to use" was admittedly a little strong. But they are aware of our use of 7 and according to the above registry, it is still unassigned.

> 
> Is there a text change needed here?
> 
> There might be.

--
Chuck Lever