[nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10: (with COMMENT)
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 28 February 2017 23:49 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9190112945F; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:49:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148832579359.29544.2444756146429228739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:49:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/ZSx_Y7IRDaJDhq9TG--_H2DrtOg>
Cc: nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis@ietf.org
Subject: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:49:53 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 3.4.5: Can a requester DoS a responder by asking the latter to read giga- or tera-bytes? And the same question the other way about for 3.4.6. - 4.4.1: not having access to memory allocated for "cancelled RPCs" also seems like a potential DoS that ought be noted. Is it? - General: I was surprised see no mention of DoS. Is that covered in some reference? Even if so, I'd have expected some discussion of DoS attacks and mitigations. - 8.2.1: "Protection below the RDMA layer is a more appropriate security mechanism for RDMA transports in performance-sensitive deployments." I think that's a bit over-stated. A deployment could be performance-sensitive but yet prioritise application layer crypto for various reasons. As you're really just talking about trade-offs, and I think that's sufficiently explained already, I figure you could omit that sentence.
- [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-i… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dra… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dra… Stephen Farrell