Subject: [nfsv4] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:48:21 -0800

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files-15: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-flex-files/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with Kathleen's discuss. To put a finer point on it, I think the
security considerations section here needs to really clearly state what the
security properties of this design are and how they differ from existing NFS.
That's not true yes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- I'm a bit confused on whether the client can tell which model the server is using. I see:

   An implementation can always be deployed as a loosely coupled model.
   There is however no way for a storage device to indicate over a NFS
   protocol that it can definitively participate in a tightly coupled
   model:

But then there is a flag that you use to indicate you are tightly coupled. So I'm confused.

- I note that some of your PDUs have /// in front and some do not. E.g., Section 5. Is that a bug.

- S 2.2.
" Note: it is recommended to implement common access control methods at"

Do you want RECOMMENDED.

---

From: Tom Haynes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:32:24 -0800

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Could you please clarify the last sentence?

That’s not true yet.

Or:

That’s not true, yes?

If yet, then hopefully pushing the next version will suffice.

Ah, the flag ffdv_tightly_coupled is used between the metadata server
and the client. Not between the storage device and the metadata server.

> - I note that some of your PDUs have /// in front and some do not. E.g., Section 5. Is that a bug.

No, the ones with a /// are to be extracted and the other ones refer to existing fragments
from other IDs. So for example, the one in Section 5 is referring to RFC5662.

> " Note: it is recommended to implement common access control methods at"

Yes, this was pointed out by Brian Weis in the SecDir review.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:34:13 -0800

> If yet, then hopefully pushing the next version will suffice.

Sorry. "yet"

> and the client. Not between the storage device and the metadata server.

OK. Thanks.

> from other IDs. So for example, the one in Section 5 is referring to

Makes sense.

-Ekr