Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS)
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 11:47 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 5D4F912DA07; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EGBsHV2S7yqo; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CFA012D96D; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id m84so2791304ywd.5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lZ3flmRpAqxTYAqc2sUi49ow3dg5lpASB7r9NKK47lg=; b=QG9B7Ht7g0eZG/+4AAp4OhVjAkARksuRxucWK++YGFi4iSm+SNMYldNjOtRDK37w1l /mD23Iucg66Imf0NKg5x5TJjUyA8CJarTDcebgo+0JWWeDnXvTbOQNdZn426eEDsc3H4 9TKo5eS4U80B9uEGMKFOwmDX3ChShct08pdptOq0Lia/KN0IPvp5S2AWovuT/lzDNSjW AQM/fnREw+TZD8k1gFE9PiKnqeM6CgMTOKCWsffl4XOihf74oS0BQ2hrJKx2VD0X/Pgh kZns7MHT955Fx5J5SsgaHxWnTNcOYLw4PzaYMS55Dlm8FFv2O8OTS0BSlcjPK+XXPMWm 1Avg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lZ3flmRpAqxTYAqc2sUi49ow3dg5lpASB7r9NKK47lg=; b=Ro7Uc+g2uG3euGHfXAbTFl/lGVCb6WphX/WqlxdyWDIe0nyMItl51gg1j2WZPw8cru I16+rc33N13jdSJlouiJozdoZlYIG8CIxBwRJbAiZwXy0pdtrVtgJTzUivBGyJR3cohm EbMzw3nS+5QaQLXywqO/AfIfnp3/7RzX2itd1ZaXcZN9hitMA12Ldzdk5eoAqR6KaXAx yDfaJpjSLPqZFQ0JdEQwFFpXFlTr1DTttWf9uaESiKKIJqE9foM/2AC0jEDr817qXeaf aFB94MWe83e9bEzxKebiuQk83saU21VglFXafiFcAvul9SSBpxaDCjmagoP184hPlWFo srpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcPN93TT9CNh03LXqgM91GXdms6YhEzWMs52TFp1OWlIh/J3car 4scWrT2KTr2fXcPtFmZOj5mDAPoilyim0C03kx8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227dJ51hFBP2xtNQKIhpvUJmuFc5rZeNQT4+vl4RbKAaBmrem9b/6moV3WLKY9zpgY0t1zFnxOQboLDnGKJO5JY=
X-Received: by 10.129.110.70 with SMTP id j67mr7832296ywc.342.1516880868467; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.20.4 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.20.4 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:47:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <831A94C5-B235-4000-B2AF-CFF3E5198AF9@gmail.com>
References: <151681212064.22573.802639868783000012.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <49F618BA-9ED0-4DB9-BA4F-C96D7568C2F8@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-e0oaUAGFip51JmPikU0OHz7eWZfUbiTvqC0ghWa3KVWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH5P-1cgeWbEnFg4He-1ED8TSbx=-NF=SHBckAT2W0Tg_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dEGdsBb79HLK1ZAzdmT26BHUhLRBaGy3rfWVENBW3eFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cdiQFYqEYJSW7xjiSoFvHmP67kpgyq3Wj3MHC7dC20AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dUKQuKdr4Zg78UCad-h6hRqcijwZT=QxEEqWzTPGfyVQ@mail.gmail.com> <831A94C5-B235-4000-B2AF-CFF3E5198AF9@gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:47:47 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eGCDfzCenjHXCJ7TDAWdxNMaqxSa3LR8XbZYM5PcHDDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Haynes <loghyr@gmail.com>
Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149252854ed3d056398593b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/zNiaXwtsydwV33o0b5h3_B20l0Q>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS)
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:47:53 -0000
Hi, Thomas, On Jan 25, 2018 1:56 AM, "Thomas Haynes" <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote: On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: Cool. On Jan 24, 2018 20:29, "Kathleen Moriarty" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, First off, I was less concerned about this point than the proposed text discussed and other points. Having said that... On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Kathleen and EKR, > > > On Jan 24, 2018 16:25, "Tom Haynes" <loghyr@gmail.com> wrote: > > I purposely did not update the document to avoid confusion during this > process. > > There was an unanswered question in my last reply, namely concerning the use > of SHOULD versus MUST in the 3rd sentence below: > > It is RECOMMENDED to implement common access control methods at the > storage device filesystem to allow only the metadata server root > (super user) access to the storage device, and to set the owner of > all directories holding data files to the root user. This approach > provides a practical model to enforce access control and fence off > cooperative clients, but it can not protect against malicious > clients; hence it provides a level of security equivalent to > AUTH_SYS. Communications between the metadata server and file server > SHOULD be secure from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle protocol > tampering. The security measure could be due to physical security > (e.g., the servers are co-located in a physically secure area), from > encrypted communications, or some other technique. > I think rephrasing to RECOMMENDED would be good here. Hi Kathleen, I think you are proposing: It is RECOMMENDED that the communication between the metadata server and storage device be secure …. So, Thomas, do you have any more questions I should be chasing? Hi Spencer, Yes, what is the difference between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED? It must be a nuance I am missing... >From RFC2119, I don’t see the difference. 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. BTW - the text above is from the proposed 16th copy of the draft. Once we get past this issue, I will submit it. We will likely chat about this on today's telechat, but I read Kathleen's response as "no, it doesn't have to be MUST". The switch between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED was probably not significant. I don't think there's a difference, either. Spencer Thanks, Tom Spencer Thank you, Kathleen > >> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Kathleen Moriarty >> <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks for your response to the SecDir review. I see the proposed changes >> have >> not been integrated yet. This discuss will be resolved when the SecDir >> review >> changes have been included. >> > > I purposely did not update the document to avoid confusion during this > process. > > There was an unanswered question in my last reply, namely concerning the use > of SHOULD versus MUST in the 3rd sentence below: > > It is RECOMMENDED to implement common access control methods at the > storage device filesystem to allow only the metadata server root > (super user) access to the storage device, and to set the owner of > all directories holding data files to the root user. This approach > provides a practical model to enforce access control and fence off > cooperative clients, but it can not protect against malicious > clients; hence it provides a level of security equivalent to > AUTH_SYS. Communications between the metadata server and file server > SHOULD be secure from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle protocol > tampering. The security measure could be due to physical security > (e.g., the servers are co-located in a physically secure area), from > encrypted communications, or some other technique. > > > Do you folks have any thoughts about whether "secure from eavesdroppers" > ought to be SHOULD or MUST? > > IIUC, Thomas was reluctant to specify MUST ... and since we're saying that > co-location in a secure area is one of the options, I'm not sure why this > would be either SHOULD or MUST in the first place. > > Conformance test cases for that requirement would be a riot ... :-) > > Spencer > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HKdT2KjnWJFmzEPxlGcNH0OnUDg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nfsv4 mailing list >> nfsv4@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > > -- Best regards, Kathleen
- [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Tom Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-… Spencer Dawkins at IETF