[nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-04

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA6C1293FF; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 X0SAxpWQ3w6I; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 7E9291294AF; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 11so17671770yby.0; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BqVmtRyo2z+8UGG4bBDoSElu9iw9AA1Ht5+nRLbIvK4=; b=iWjVginoMWtPYcD3Ne0u+aaJIdv8FNdjPTkm+sF5QhgiAT0aQgAWvT8zwbjWAfrZcN DbahRlNSiJqcz6BRrQuJeLKTtga4C/gGOLyn1vSzY9sbFO47EZ3kHZrfHOqPim/rYVti SPZxD01HIH4Bw+5pWIgZvgbigw47nrrbbT8B9yMVKvx7/LXMvhjl7d1p0KgvJ3tNWrh1 TcnARVpsYpLRcA6ztO3Bh0tSx+rrBmnwJfa5HKDtvU+m++cfvKuAx+Cuam7JNWO6euLs INMu2r5yGHHkD6F8Dcw5q4NX4ISfEyXSszKZ/ZC34XZnTH6ycdvWCt52Ybb9SyMwPVrB 5p/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BqVmtRyo2z+8UGG4bBDoSElu9iw9AA1Ht5+nRLbIvK4=; b=QhM/lr2RXOIYmcp282STbXDFgFMfwkvI/fa4v+GBN5QAGnOa00MUfTbkqAO/+yV//e zdH/evxEDc8VHHTG8wPn2Z+LgpR3MaBbe+uwUfDtY01pmF+jK+340b1oQUURT98GnJ+M VaFtYtLtpRRsR1yfq2TSGRHkU2aD9ti3xYBTpklXTLCp/SB5X7KqJEa7dWZLNmL3YN9C 5P+ZNRcUmn3gwKB6W+uYQHXohuH6qbpQwU3RLiIllmhONwkNizp99cMjRsF0iiQdP13w qAuf3SYxN8jf0eq+ZCHmJvQrDOBXBeQ3q2PC2b6+2MnAVYmLYFI3CbPMkF8SqWzpxlLc ZqIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7vJkbFkvZ50P8IueEFzvsReMH0/jA04ngV/MH9Zn3jz2pBjS7M 4Il6iD7u/tUwEIYiDus/DIERfN/x780y
X-Received: by 10.37.44.69 with SMTP id s66mr10541271ybs.84.1493406122357; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.161.198 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:02:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-c=wHPP61COdPKcpgLZ7pSfoG+6VC-_NrakF_PHCFM-fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs@ietf.org
Cc: nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114321086dba22054e3eb5ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/TevqtXH4_sG1wv5IG4XhrPc182A>
Subject: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-04
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:03:27 -0000

Dear Authors,

I've completed my AD evaluation for this draft. It's really clean and easy
for me to understand.

I noticed one nit that you'd probably like to change before Last Call (the
fewer things reviewers have to complain about, the fewer Last Call comments
you'll see).

In this text,

   Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
   from the proposed NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file [RFC7863].  This includes
   both nfs types that end with a 4, such as nfs_cookie4, count4, etc.,
   as well as more generic types such as opaque and bool.

and this text,

   In order to provide fine-grained access control to query or modify
   extended attributes, additions are proposed to the set of access
   rights that can be checked to determine if the client is permitted to
   perform the xattr operation.

I noticed that the draft is still written like a draft - "proposed". At
this point, the text should be what you'd expect to see in an approved RFC
- so, something like

   Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
   from the NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file defined in [RFC7863].  This includes
   both nfs types that end with a 4, such as nfs_cookie4, count4, etc.,
   as well as more generic types such as opaque and bool.

and

   In order to provide fine-grained access control to query or modify
   extended attributes, new access rights are defined for the set of access
   rights that can be checked to determine if the client is permitted to
   perform the xattr operation.

Could you submit an update? And then I'll request Last Call.

Thanks again for a really clear document!

Spencer