Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-02

Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 16:18 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 8126512894E; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:18:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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] 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 ncXs_di-7PvH; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com (userp2120.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) (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 253B21274D0; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wBKGE1jp083838; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:18:35 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-2018-07-02; bh=4siqX0oagqMU878NZ62o+dDcUu1FUewrFt0gU3t4SuI=; b=LVO7qwThXgP9k5eTN+kAWhVeKTHeOrMICxeAtNG07tVKasJpfOJ5hiJiNTxyd/Mk8I1j Wuh8exsotvJgBV+PvRuuIC7N/EmXC+IIpKi01Uy0+Ip0G70OHs+sGayUsEXZik4NOEqp dlyrNmzNtN3eI869laHYivascR732IIvhfsHsSQlBuzIUY3eH2riWL02iDJ6wHZVZw55 9JbLyVgmhOBvqxf0bOHcwPoSpItqjpI4y79ZnURebn10ec23ybgIC3g1OMhqdqw4B549 7jdYsXl179SPt2opWsConNojJqZr2Goh+83dzHpq2U4EQeX45W1YVZVvIt9EOPAQHq9n KQ==
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2pfn1yxytx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:18:34 +0000
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBKGITwq005376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:18:29 GMT
Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBKGISIX012381; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:18:28 GMT
Received: from anon-dhcp-171.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:18:28 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dVn420A-eyOmHV2M5duORR0BvpNzrBrpN35jPvKDYhRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:18:27 -0500
Cc: Christopher Wood <christopherwood07@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10202A1E-95D3-4C73-910E-526C644E200F@oracle.com>
References: <F11DB63C-7052-4813-B781-B3396E944E4F@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dVn420A-eyOmHV2M5duORR0BvpNzrBrpN35jPvKDYhRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9113 signatures=668680
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=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1812200132
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/CuWUsYNakxMRy24O2sMlfuXsN4Y>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-02
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, 20 Dec 2018 16:18:39 -0000


> On Dec 20, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Authors,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:16 AM Christopher Wood <christopherwood07@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
>   These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security 
> area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these 
> comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
>    The summary of my review is: Ready with nits.
> 
> I believe these are the only Last Call comments I've seen on your draft, and the Last Call period has ended. 
> 
> Could you respond to Christopher, and (if necessary) submit a revised draft?

I actually hadn't seen any comments until now! Thanks for
forwarding this. I will huddle with Dave and submit a
revised draft within the next week.


> Thanks!
> 
> Spencer (D)
>  
> This document is in great shape and very well written. Most of my 
> comments are editorial in nature aimed at helping improve readability of 
> the document. Please let me know if you’ve further questions, 
> comments, or concerns.
> 
> - Section 3, fourth bullet: Regarding “[NFSv4.1] distinguishes two 
> (see [RFC5661]),” would it be possible to provide the two types of 
> trunking relationships inline? Although this document is meant to 
> supplement existing work, I do think it would help improve readability 
> and minimize cross-referencing.
> - Section 5.1, fifth bullet: Rather than specify that addresses “MUST 
> provide a way of connecting to a single server,” could we specify 
> desired client behavior if this does not happen? I do not know how often 
> such misconfigurations occur, though it seems prudent to provide 
> guidance in case it does.
> - Section 5.2, sixth bullet: It might be worth pointing to the amended 
> Security Considerations section, which contains relevant text regarding 
> DNSSEC validation for host name entries. I left a note here while 
> reading only to discover it was addressed later on.
> - Section 5.2.3: Are clients allowed to race connection attempts across 
> all types available? The text implies that this must be done 
> sequentially, which seems unnecessarily prohibitive.
> - Section 5.2.5, third paragraph, first sentence: Perhaps a simpler way 
> to write this is something akin to “fs_locations cannot point to 
> alternate locations until data propagation occurs”?
> 
> Best,
> Chris
> 

--
Chuck Lever