Re: [nfsv4] Security document

> On Jan 30, 2024, at 8:22 AM, Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> The chairs would like a sense of the working group with regards to the draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-07 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security/) and adoption.  Please let us know if you think the working group collectively agrees to the body of work proposed in the draft.
> 
> The sense of the chairs is that the working group does not have consensus on the scope or set of items presented in the current individual draft.  If that is the case, we would like to know what topics/items in the draft that you do support and which ones you do not believe are ready or that the WG will not be able to reach consensus on.  If there are steps that you think the working group should take towards clarity on any of those topics, the chairs are interested in hearing those too.
> 
> Thanks,
> NFSv4 Chairs
> 
> ----
> Chris Inacio
> inacio@cert.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

For me, the largest issue is whether vendors are required to revamp their implementations when we effectively rewrite NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, and NFSv4.2.

I would propose that instead of the security changes being “backported” to the earlier versions, we make the security document apply to all future releases.

Perhaps to differentiate, we make it NFSv5. I.e., NFSv5 is secure NFS.

Re: [nfsv4] Security document - sense of the working group