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

Christopher Wood <christopherwood07@gmail.com> Fri, 08 March 2019 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <christopherwood07@gmail.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 78FEE1277CD; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:04:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 omFypDYDZ5_u; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc31.google.com (mail-yw1-xc31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c31]) (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 42D131277C9; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc31.google.com with SMTP id x20so3203272ywd.5; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:04:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hZSupaQe1WLHGbrrpdU3hhjMwHTcOT8Vyal5hjlZJaY=; b=giyGmXX3aXS7k4/3OchR3MfWmzNwAGx5/eCcXlyIPEc187wBzl6tJNMmzm7u4XKJ77 mEeDanC72NdTy/cHjf5O+OSmRT/1cGPsLp3LSBgwH6uP/RmDbVbN/c7nhTG6dOIYCwO8 iekabOoOb9fRpvA96XPuMCC4D9oPHq7RuSRpAQmQ9gM7PNfETfEGy+YQR2VSawerI/iR ULdMu87SWnrcJ2QMppJzO2yvD/7Qp2C1MKp8Btdp4tkrxODQNzjgoA5B/WzXb+UpG8OP t5zAbwmXL53eGHU696vz2xJU3xSy+aeow+cc8L9y/f/b6Jrk9cqwfkcVjRgq5BCVSOcv /rTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hZSupaQe1WLHGbrrpdU3hhjMwHTcOT8Vyal5hjlZJaY=; b=aJJU+fzmJoHmRRooW9ncVijvm/0xMbxwMs/KY8MrFjyZJMYc9+xSSNDkLU/7Sd6HAx l9K6fqNKyMnLK4D2c1oXkeIaAYPIdLxqm35Bq/fp5o92hcQ9KfbNqiJSq/KGLp4U73kN rKirEPnHBHEUf3e7zfbuLAqvJAphbAkq9BOVWXtSRTRCx0TfqYULKz5GyysP/eKO2XnK ptiXsNUiGooWis4KaBi5gYpE1tNQtrJwbgMn5ttFxvN56hQFUrOES6Aj2J2Re/oszIHw VkOucT6+PfzhRSqoqwotTUMtmdXmn6tAH+KeOBOFWkpT7FsAUECzGIWNk+BtMxziea+S zCNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVEpQzVi9d4DzaDsf1wJe0kMFLIfr86r9m0NWq8479inuUN5mHe 0QrGHutNXQP5TfYiKk6uPe+z0TyUayMHQ57KZ9k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwLj8kt/38KllZ8PucCzLbhHmvCHTvc2DhJyRcYe/AcbkR+kS8kvXY//942SDyV7Tfp5CId15gcqXOPrebx9p0=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:2544:: with SMTP id l65mr16477828ywl.263.1552082663123; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:04:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F11DB63C-7052-4813-B781-B3396E944E4F@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dVn420A-eyOmHV2M5duORR0BvpNzrBrpN35jPvKDYhRw@mail.gmail.com> <BEE9CA7E-2DDE-4D78-BC95-34EBA8DF160B@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <BEE9CA7E-2DDE-4D78-BC95-34EBA8DF160B@oracle.com>
From: Christopher Wood <christopherwood07@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:04:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO8oSXmCHJmqTmrX7rpsiKpM9VT_xioQXWEztK1dew5xn=D=dA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update@ietf.org, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PdLfZRxP9w-WRUXkrveafMsUs_s>
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:04:29 -0000

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:52 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hello Chris-
>
> Thanks for your review, and my apologies for the delayed response.
>
>
> > - 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.
>
> After discussion, Dave and I removed the text that mentions NFSv4.1-
> specific features in this paragraph. They are an unnecessary
> digression.
>
>
> > - 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.
>
> Dave and I agree that specifying client behavior here is a better
> approach. Dave provided new text.
>
>
> > - 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.
>
> We assume you meant Section 5.1, sixth bullet. A reference to Section
> 7 "Security Considerations" was added at the end of this paragraph.
>
>
> > - 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.
>
> We introduced a couple of paragraphs of implementation guidance that
> compares sequential and parallel connection approaches.
>
>
> > - 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”?
>
> We updated the text to clarify the ordering requirements.
>
>
> Because you feel the document is "ready with nits" I've taken the
> liberty of submitting draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-03
> with these changes. rfcdiff will show the exact text that has
> changed. Let us know if any further changes are necessary.

No further changes needed. Thanks for the updates!

Best,
Chris