[nfsv4] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-05: (with COMMENT)

[Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deb,

Sorry, I missed this review and just found it.

Thanks for the review.

> On Jan 3, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 5:  Security Considerations:   It seems odd to me that allowing the DS
> and MDS on different servers doesn't drive a security concern.  Given this
> draft is a refinement to RFC8435, do the security considerations from that RFC
> apply to this draft?


Yes.

Would this address your concerns:

There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC7862].

Becomes:

There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC8435].


>
> Thanks to Ben Schwartz for his secdir review, and to Carsten Bormann, who
> parenthetically alludes to this situation.
>
>
>