Re: [nfsv4] Agenda items for virtual interim

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 5:25 PM Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2021, at 9:28 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing from Chuck about his thoughts about
> addressing use of RPC-with-TLS for NFSv3 and how that might or might not
> interact with the v4 security work now going on.
>
> I haven't had a chance to read nfsv4-security yet. That is at
> the top of my to-do list.
>

It's 118 pages so it would be best to start soon.


> After that, I think I'd like to huddle with Rick to discuss
> how NFSv3 should work. Once we have something, we can present
> options or discuss it on the mailing list.
>
> In short, I agree this is something that needs to be discussed
> at some point, but I'm not confident I'll be ready by Oct 27.
> I'd prefer to see some discussion on list about this before
> we bring it to a WG meeting.
>

I think I should publish an agenda by 10/20 so let me know by then if you
have an item to present.  I can specify a period of general discussion for
miscellaneous items


> (Given the limited degree of interactivity available during a
> virtual meeting,


I don't think we will face the interactivity issues that we saw with
meetecho, given that we will use WebEx.

I'd say we should consider restricting the
> agenda to slides plus a couple of executive WG decisions for
> each chosen topic, at least until the virtual meeting
> technology improves).
>

I don't see all that many decisions being made anyway..  in any case, any
decisions made have to be confirmed on the list.

This is not really a technology issue.  I don't remember large numbers of
decisions being made when we were meeting with everybody in the same room.

>
>
> > I also want to hear from Tom T about a number of RDMA-related topics:
> >       • His 'push-mode" work.
> >       • Possible approaches to a secure RDMA protocol taking advantage
> of either TLS or Quic.
>
> This might not be a popular opinion, but DDP/MPA over QUIC in
> my opinion would be a more straightforward option than plumbing
> a bespoke authentication protocol into RPC/RDMA.


It's not unpopular with me.  If you want to avoid the work of putting
authentication into RPC/RDMA v2 by talking this approach, I'm OK with it
but you might want to send a message to the wg list to inform the group
about this decision.

A transport
> level approach could also help resolve the authentication issues
> that came up last time we considered a pNFS/RDMA layout type.
>

As I recall things, the issues we were dealing with were related to ofed's
approach to authorization rather than being due to authentication issues
per se.

>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>