IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25

"Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com> Mon, 08 April 2013 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Tom.Haynes@netapp.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 6702621F8D8F; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDlqogLDDzVv; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74CA21F8916; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,433,1363158000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="38526919"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2013 15:11:53 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r38MBqqA026028; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.175]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:11:52 -0700
From: "Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Thread-Topic: SecDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25
Thread-Index: AQHONETOGWagEh4py0udbBA2y+BXSZjNAJYA//+V2ICAAMKEgA==
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:11:44 +0000
Message-ID: <06E6B7AC-1DAD-4F82-A7BE-68BB0DD1948B@netapp.com>
References: <4DCE9E87-2EF9-4E40-8A33-AB3AF4A11F88@checkpoint.com> <EBFA8133-C174-41C7-A76A-89E991504386@netapp.com> <72FD367F-52F5-4C24-867E-E89BCBB39057@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <72FD367F-52F5-4C24-867E-E89BCBB39057@checkpoint.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_06E6B7AC1DAD4F82A7BE68BB0DD1948Bnetappcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:12:08 -0000

On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com<mailto:ynir@checkpoint.com>> wrote:


On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com<mailto:Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:35 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com<mailto:ynir@checkpoint.com>>
 wrote:



And it goes on throughout the document - always a diff from NFS 3. That kind of voice makes sense when addressing a community with significant NFS 3 experience, and little or no NFS 4 experience. Is this still the case?


While some implementors may go straight to NFSv4.1, the path is still NFSv3
to NFSv4.0.

Yes. My question is whether that path has already been traversed. Looking at some vendor sites and Internet forums, it looks like all the major operating systems (Windows, Linux, Mac OS, even IBM's exotic systems) already have NFSv4. I believe the same can be said for storage products such as NetApp. So who are those developers who have existing NFSv3 implementations, and have not yet implemented NFSv4?



Size doesn't matter here - the developers who would write a NFSv4
implementation from scratch would come from a NFSv3 background.

NFSv3 -> NFSv4 is a major release, it deserves some transition.

NFSv4.1 -> NFSv4.2 is a minor release, it has almost no text wasted on transition.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email