Re: [secdir] [nfsv4] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-03

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Thu, 24 October 2019 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F402B120120; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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=oracle.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 ImvCNrY9iuX8; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com [141.146.126.78]) (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 680DE12010E; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9ODDph2109427; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:14:00 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=uLP6zwvx8yX9lm64zUlNTScsAXtktlzwM451onZn6iM=; b=eFzpeaTUakVjNdTcUAswqcVTCodrzizaQOL2/YH78sHF3G+hj7gOj9hzdKBxkhQ9/r7B t34klDX7yA8OszGzbAsPYorCcU5YSsAphyLySc0L21dlfu++WFqYXKEWCQYhb7NHqy9z BbCDtDCpcVAYcNILJjgkyroisTsD9tJ87ToDtZJlVPjK9nfCuelSnbcFS0x67id06oe5 jiSwnopJI0UgBmRI8AaFGupVrMQ0csmAShQNZQGevgIxHet96e++ac02Cfr/ZxMNOtsw lyIVXuQVxy1lCJWVSyYdHQysbeKg1Sm+6EN+GqQu78uXc3qjGhlTcUQ/4TcS0nZE4kPG kQ==
Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2vqteq3ht8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:14:00 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9ODDCtp092793; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:13:59 GMT
Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2vtjkjjrxv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:13:59 +0000
Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x9ODDwc4025946; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:13:58 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-153.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:13:58 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <YTBPR01MB2845C63770AE520BA7CB8244DD6B0@YTBPR01MB2845.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:13:57 -0400
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, Derrell Piper <ddp@electric-loft.org>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls.all@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <096259B5-3892-409E-8FE9-1920BA7175BD@oracle.com>
References: <157177407766.13058.11570408881931663610@ietfa.amsl.com> <5FBB7F0B-450A-417A-AD80-B1BB2BBDE1CC@oracle.com> <CADaq8jfPjuMAm1r4zTG_30Qt7K8+Tp-qKPC01TGpK2-PRfDO0g@mail.gmail.com> <YTBPR01MB2845C63770AE520BA7CB8244DD6B0@YTBPR01MB2845.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9419 signatures=668684
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910240128
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9419 signatures=668684
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910240128
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/AD5hZ9bQjEK8rJTqOl6wcm_Zymk>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [nfsv4] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:14:08 -0000

> On Oct 23, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>; wrote:
> 
> I'll admit I haven't read the most recent draft and haven't looked at it
> in detail. However, my impression is that the reviewer might be more
> comfortable if the draft makes it clear that "rpc-tls only" servers will
> not only be permitted, but encouraged.

Indeed, they are permitted. All legacy servers will take this form,
and of course, if no certificate material is provided to a TLS-capable
NFS server, it will act as if RPC-on-TLS is recognized but not
supported.

"Encouraged" is a bit strong, however. I think if we /encourage/ a
behavior, it would be to encourage the use of RPC-on-TLS where it is
practical.


> (I don't see a "http" vs "https" distinction, but extant NFSv4 servers that
> I am familiar with can be configured to only allow clients that use
> RPCSEC_GSS and I would expect that rpc-tls enabled servers could be
> configured the same way.)
> 
> As an aside, I do plan on implementing this in Winter 2020, rick

Thanks Rick!

--
Chuck Lever