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

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

I think that's fine but it is really up to Ben.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:25 AM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 6:46 PM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:50 PM Chuck Lever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben-
>>
>> I'm nearly done with the new text. I need some clarification below.
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>>
>
>> > Section 8.1
>> >
>> > Isn't it codepoint squatting to claim auth flavor 7 before IANA has
>> > allocated it?  (This is usually a Discuss-level issue, but that part is
>> too
>> > long already so I left it here.)
>>
>> I agree it is slightly improper, but the authors were not aware of
>> IANA's authority over RPC authentication flavors until late in the
>> document's life cycle. It was a good faith oversight.
>>
>
> I think everyone  accepts that.
>
>>
>> I believe we have IANA's permission at this point to use the value 7.
>>
>
> It's best to ask them.  If they don't agree, we can ask for an early
> allocation.
>
>
> Quoting from IANA review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls in late May:
>
> (BEGIN IANA COMMENTS)
>
> IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:
>
> The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate,
> please let us know.
>
> The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this
> document, there are two actions which we must complete.
>
> First, in the RPC Authentication Flavor Numbers registry on the Remote
> Procedure Call (RPC) Authentication Numbers registry page located at:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpc-authentication-numbers/
>
> a single, new registration will be made as follows:
>
> Identifier String: AUTH_TLS
> Flavor Name: TLS
> Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
> Description: Signals the use of TLS to protect RPC messages on
> socket-based transports.
> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>
> IANA notes that the authors have requested a value of 7 for this
> registration.
>
>
> "Permission to use" was admittedly a little strong. But they are aware of
> our use of 7 and according to the above registry, it is still unassigned.
>
>
>> Is there a text change needed here?
>>
>
> There might be.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>