Re: [nfsv4] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com> Mon, 02 April 2018 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <loghyr@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 4049112D879; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:56:32 -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 mCCV7YzpN0f0; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x22e.google.com (mail-pl0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) (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 9CFE412706D; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x4-v6so5521733pln.7; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/Du6g1S8DNgSgmKGlv+QEbJzpKFSfqDoPkn0PhMrohA=; b=YlDYYL7Jd2gL06/RiD7zDjMNg0uaUDWJvKLHl6Bfbvdv5jueC92QGlhBVNBj74wp1d w47qN4hP6unDuD8KHGkMV/taciD8WXqAkvtLuNtugh4WzSBaD6rXEaRwDQLh4e3WaiOq EQW2wL55bpr0jxSWyNef7HmiT9ZjmhcoFAomMU3gr+lOlltRRMgQ/0KbTEEcivzjWfIG I/1UIJ7vqIQhBATI5I64N/n6Tp2TSkKM38DEVaqWwLeQl3uZJwm3goxNcDHMW8QEPXXq BWD9b4ubnqfVrxMIhxYCZDBlEc3q1sREEZuYs1WNZPsVEAg74Ya/1Z2bslsapaZmWALZ U7rQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/Du6g1S8DNgSgmKGlv+QEbJzpKFSfqDoPkn0PhMrohA=; b=E2Mwij5+aq2PrMPagJjiaJvnX7+RIxpDEC5zv8ugiHUY+50D8L7oUEi+nFcjDftT9T ECs+j4lRf5ACveRQmtapZGsZhriZOoOk4X0+gu67c3v8SxbxtDv7gkymHnNA6yjNohVR WlTJ5/wQi2Cg/g5LcyzslXqrVV9JLxUJJlE7m992iWabRFS0NGBUcRM2XEVmXWtOeo0d t9yernGmXQXgX4disOK0ToVVnBVE/NRAp5Rb1JsZCG5+8voA7zFCA8htMA5GktSdrAvD I+MlFC/N5mT5jk9bNUw0fOmtwpXNdm4RI29XbXyEKAoP81A/MPqFq9w8ZK6ty7zcpvGg hWyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7En03qKKhB06LwHGSB3w2GBAVEIhFzxUPtAgKSEtGMX9nOsw8rT bt6/DthpICwCvqr2diYpsl0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49uYmkad7OH4BRU5GULp6PWHZc0IcrTsRbFrOsB51JY5B3P800mYHT3bRcBb930HUBV5W+rPA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5501:: with SMTP id f1-v6mr10989663pli.50.1522698985999; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kinslayer.corp.primarydata.com (63-157-6-18.dia.static.qwest.net. [63.157.6.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w24sm2143830pfl.84.2018.04.02.12.56.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F2ADAD73-6AB3-45EF-B6FE-033E01F58D8E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3D344745-51CD-4011-B021-6F9B1BF213DB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:56:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPE5gV3KPpRpRxAtYRSSCZh8+3-fcf-1VsxF3AxmomnwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files@ietf.org, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <151683050192.22597.10931170494891133045.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9FD918F5-D08C-45FC-B6BB-30CBB3D4EC51@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPE5gV3KPpRpRxAtYRSSCZh8+3-fcf-1VsxF3AxmomnwQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/eQa2ZqMX2PdHkaa3PNksgIz4xFY>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:56:32 -0000

Hi Eric,

Kathleen has removed her “discuss” from this document (the new version was pushed,
which satisfied her need for the SecDir review.

Could you please revisit your position on this draft?

Thanks,
Tom

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com <mailto:loghyr@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 24, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: Discuss
> >
> > 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 <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-flex-files/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I concur with Kathleen's discuss. To put a finer point on it, I think the
> > security considerations section here needs to really clearly state what the
> > security properties of this design are and how they differ from existing NFS.
> > That's not true yes.
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify the last sentence?
> 
> That’s not true yet.
> 
> Or:
> 
> That’s not true, yes?
> 
> If yet, then hopefully pushing the next version will suffice.
> 
> Sorry. "yet"
>  
> 
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - I'm a bit confused on whether the client can tell which model the server is using. I see:
> >
> >   An implementation can always be deployed as a loosely coupled model.
> >   There is however no way for a storage device to indicate over a NFS
> >   protocol that it can definitively participate in a tightly coupled
> >   model:
> >
> > But then there is a flag that you use to indicate you are tightly coupled. So I'm confused.
> >
> 
> Ah, the flag ffdv_tightly_coupled is used between the metadata server
> and the client. Not between the storage device and the metadata server.
> 
> OK. Thanks.
>  
> 
> 
> > - I note that some of your PDUs have /// in front and some do not. E.g., Section 5. Is that a bug.
> >
> 
> No, the ones with a /// are to be extracted and the other ones refer to existing fragments
> from other IDs. So for example, the one in Section 5 is referring to RFC5662.
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > - S 2.2.
> > " Note: it is recommended to implement common access control methods at"
> >
> > Do you want RECOMMENDED.
> 
> Yes, this was pointed out by Brian Weis in the SecDir review.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > nfsv4@ietf.org <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>