Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-02

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 9C55A12B001; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FFFr02OhPPXD; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C504E1289FA; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.58] (198-84-237-221.cpe.teksavvy.com [198.84.237.221]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF0FB30; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <60B01F34-8041-4A6A-8479-6F19F9BFCDBE@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:32:53 -0400
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <011CB47A-63D5-42FA-97A7-84A2EBEDB75C@deployingradius.com>
References: <155293906683.26184.494210804985115598@ietfa.amsl.com> <60B01F34-8041-4A6A-8479-6F19F9BFCDBE@oracle.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/iPdVX0JtaAqgIREU9DGuf-Bi-_Y>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:32:58 -0000

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It may be worth reiterating that the protocols are independent.
>> i.e. This document does not define the *combination* of TLS and RPC,
>> so much as RPC carried over TLS.  The underlying RPC protocol is
>> largely unaware of the encapsulating TLS information.
> 
> It is true that the RPC protocol is unchanged (except for the
> addition of AUTH_TLS). However, I'm not clear what triggered
> your comment. Can you expand a bit?

  I'm a proponent of making explicit statements.  Otherwise the reader may be left with questions as to what, exactly "TLS + RPC" means.

  Having an explicit statement is clearer IMHO than assuming that the reader knows this implicitly.

  Alan DeKok.