IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09

karen deitke <karen.deitke@oracle.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <karen.deitke@oracle.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 44C0C1314BD for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 bhNZ9tCL5909 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) (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 8E35113144C for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v3QJb0Sw002719 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:37:01 GMT
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v3QJb0xr005522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:37:00 GMT
Received: from abhmp0012.oracle.com (abhmp0012.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3QJb088016400 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:37:00 GMT
Received: from [10.159.108.130] (/10.159.108.130) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:36:59 -0700
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
References: <CADaq8jdkGgL+H-yoO-+bTNbSYiE_1us9cN5SXY8QV0gfYfK0Ng@mail.gmail.com> <ce42960d-d1e9-8fa6-e98e-3e9b1a2af7d6@oracle.com> <f66e8e66-ba54-ff57-945a-7951eab2f8b1@talpey.com> <BB65A737-BDBD-4A23-9CEE-2EA153293842@oracle.com> <33468014-6695-a2da-1af8-f1f355fbe986@talpey.com> <CADaq8jcJJQ3TiVX6fFURg22YgNg=Cd7ezNQewjt6fgNK4LrPVg@mail.gmail.com> <F417EA11-D49F-420D-A64F-AE6A382B920C@oracle.com> <7213a956-6157-d0a6-432d-1da8d555d8e9@talpey.com> <A7BB8A22-53E3-4910-A6DE-C6103343D309@oracle.com> <6974E7E7-051B-4F28-A61A-DF6F841B248B@oracle.com> <CADaq8jct4F=rKSW9qSW9HGP_C2hsn1uCF5Tw8YCWwWTjwD7uGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: karen deitke <karen.deitke@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Message-ID: <60248732-a86f-e8c3-03f5-1138ea178440@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:37:28 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8jct4F=rKSW9qSW9HGP_C2hsn1uCF5Tw8YCWwWTjwD7uGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/u1G5LSKspTSuDvaaEes950Ya7s4>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-09
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:37:06 -0000

How does this prevent kerberos integrity or privacy?  Couldnt that still 
be done with simply just 1 offset 0 read chunk?

Karen


On 4/26/2017 11:05 AM, David Noveck wrote:
>  Such implementation limits can constrain the complexity of NFS
>    version 4 COMPOUNDs, limit the number of elements in scatter-gather
>    operations, or prevent the use of Kerberos integrity or privacy
>    services.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email