Re: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-03

On Mon, August 11, 2008 3:05 am, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Section 1, paragraph 0:
>  >    RPCSEC_GSS version 2 (RPCSEC_GSSv2) is the same as RPCSEC_GSS
> version
>  >    1 (RPCSEC_GSSv1) except that support for channel bindings has been
>  >    added.
>
>    I'd be good to add a citation to [2] for RPCSEC_GSSv1 and RFC5056 for
>    "channel bindings." We can do that with an RFC Editor Note - send me
>    one.

I agree it would be good. But xml2rfc doesn't allow abstracts to have xrefs.

Since the i-d state at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2/
says,

  AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed

I pushed a new i-d (-04) with crefs that ask the RFC editor to correct.

>
>
> Section 7., paragraph 1:
>  >    The security considerations are the same as [2].
>
>    This document is all about applying a security mechanism (channel
>    bindings) to [2]. Surely this raises new security considerations?
>    If not, please explain why not - this is surely something the
> security
>    directorate will want to know.

Agreed.

Nico provided some useful ideas for security considerations. These
are now in -04.

>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

-- 
Mike Eisler, Senior Technical Director, NetApp, 719 599 9026,
http://blogs.netapp.com/eislers_nfs_blog/

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4