IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 10 July 2020 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 E53563A0C37; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 27fmp6oM3KGD; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B4E13A0C36; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 06ANDndH014651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:13:52 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:13:49 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200710231349.GC16335@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <159419140773.2153.2711644434582054796@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADaq8jfcuse-kdpJiqrQfTy9SVDjJk4J3fr7ah-s7GSDD89A6Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jfcuse-kdpJiqrQfTy9SVDjJk4J3fr7ah-s7GSDD89A6Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/ptGcikjgHCcCCwiiJTnOZMwyJYo>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:13:58 -0000

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:51:36AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> Regarding the proposal to reference draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-security-needs, I
> need to point out that the  current plan is not to publish the successor
> working group document as an informational RFC. It is intended for internal
> working group use

I don't think that inherently precludes making an informative reference to
it -- there are lots of published RFCs that refer to expired I-Ds that
never made it to RFC.  (But I'm not arguing very hard, and if the WG
doesn't think it's useful, that's fine.)

-Ben

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status