Subject: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-03

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:05:34 +0300

Section 1, paragraph 0:
 >    RPCSEC_GSS version 2 (RPCSEC_GSSv2) is the same as RPCSEC_GSS  
version
 >    1 (RPCSEC_GSSv1) except that support for channel bindings has been
 >    added.

   I'd be good to add a citation to [2] for RPCSEC_GSSv1 and RFC5056 for
   "channel bindings." We can do that with an RFC Editor Note - send me
   one.

Section 7., paragraph 1:
 >    The security considerations are the same as [2].

   This document is all about applying a security mechanism (channel
   bindings) to [2]. Surely this raises new security considerations?
   If not, please explain why not - this is surely something the  
security
   directorate will want to know.

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

---

From: "Mike Eisler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT)

>    "channel bindings." We can do that with an RFC Editor Note - send me

I agree it would be good. But xml2rfc doesn't allow abstracts to have xrefs.

Since the i-d state at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2/
says,

  AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed

I pushed a new i-d (-04) with crefs that ask the RFC editor to correct.

>    directorate will want to know.

Agreed.

Nico provided some useful ideas for security considerations. These
are now in -04.

-- 
Mike Eisler, Senior Technical Director, NetApp, 719 599 9026,
http://blogs.netapp.com/eislers_nfs_blog/