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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 20 December 2018 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE253129AA0; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTu6bLY7MgM5; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90BED12894E; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l10so1781144lfh.9; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:15:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EHuZ6eFZRvfRmkMnFuprTuhpXuWMEXs6tB5XaMPLb0k=; b=JZqrT5zaGNB9aa/SQBV0V5QejwmEbwK+fgxJYEfjde6ZCwvRtb+MY2cmkWgljKdrkl SJPa5M7ab4pBmgg/lAIDo+kCikuXQhVmWFppvIN7L5klF+OnVxRqoGuG5ievOE0lwo7e Bd2B/vK4cDJo39JPp9Nj2mr++VA40kXEczRVkq9eNEalnqtjr/CaHGNBKNTXHCiIf5r0 KmjxSPkUffkpgoNJ7JAjG1BDRivEBTjv1txE97iayylP4Ai3rLR/fgZrFS54Eo1NBnkd DfccyJ7b0V9cmEAiA9dB+G4UaalYzFBb7DCgaUXLZumHZgFGH9R53zKtxtSVmgvYvM1I Nkag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EHuZ6eFZRvfRmkMnFuprTuhpXuWMEXs6tB5XaMPLb0k=; b=Mv/cwedq3MraKHBzY+aOjaFlrSRROSXwZLa3axBjRMhUj0jIvg5g6eX6wppFWRVV7W jy+R8QOcIKD7mw51YKsCPvJcEIFMmtJDHvvJU1kilQ60AqPfyJbYijFJGU2tuzPOStbB 8F7/A1Y+bLWs/B8cA9+Z4TIDwv0MQFsTqMP+sG5ghOTPoTPKKKxvadbtVqbeRwZD3msi kafhHBdvL0Ms8pq4ZtV2J3TrIrnTCqiIQQ2sOI35aiZdIx0Nt9Cp23l24Ba2P32ul0+u 8VMGz6ANZV0wlgxubo3ItC4M/l8VOEJ1r64C5CsxPNqqr05XtbSjgrZ5qBR9vQsoluFL wOdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbX3crcmyHyJlITt2FSTZYgDL5C4adx1sUaYkQVuf+loK9hZGkO xT1OGyqih7Bv8WgNzbZro7152Whbb3cL79/BqF8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XgJH8XSx2MiZe/h+nIvSlb4xZEjO7Z2Axlb/UDty5l0SZa5nrRoNn7JyJB3mZs100WEcUaJakr7NrhzJdPNOw=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4345:: with SMTP id m5mr15246469lfj.142.1545322498584; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:14:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:14:45 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Christopher Wood <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097743f057d766e69"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:15:04 -0000

Hi, Authors,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:16 AM Christopher Wood <> 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?


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