Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-17

[Ballot discuss]
This a placeholder Discuss to wait for an issue brought up in the last minute by one of the co-authors (Nico Williams). This DISCUSS will be held until the next telechat to give time to react for the authors. The next telechat for this document is January 21st.

[Ballot comment]
I have the same question as Ben does about rp_name: nothing is said about it other than "human readable".  Can we have a brief discussion about this?

[Ballot comment]
Hi just a couple of comments:

- 2.7.1.4:
rp_name is labeled "human readable". Are there internationalization considerations?

-5:
It would be nice to see the IANA request details in this draft

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Please note that these documents are belonging together and should be
reviewed together. These documents are in IETF last call:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12

Abstract


  This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
  security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS).  This protocol provides support for
  multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to
  server (constructed by generic composition), security label
  assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege
  assertions, and channel bindings.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12  (Main)

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related)
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related)

and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd.


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
  security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS).  This protocol provides support for
  multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to
  server (constructed by generic composition), security label
  assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege
  assertions, and channel bindings.


Working Group Summary

  The journey within the working group for this document and the
  technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process
  than the norm.  However, the results are that many of the features
  have been implemented independently and the feedback has been
  effectively folded back into this document.  Thus the document
  quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed
  thoughfully and with working group consensus.
 
Document Quality

  From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been
  longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation
  feedback and the results have been a high quality document.
  The editing and feedback has been done by experience working
  group members with input from the entire community.
  Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair,
  am very pleased with the results.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Martin Stiemerling


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer
throughout the process of document/protocol development.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

See main NFSv4.2 shepherding document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The document shepherd has not outstanding concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Not applicable.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is solid working group consensus for these documents.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA section is aligned with document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Not applicable.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns
with XDR syntax and standards.

This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds:
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12  (Main)

    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related)
    draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related)

and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd.


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
  security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS).  This protocol provides support for
  multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to
  server (constructed by generic composition), security label
  assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege
  assertions, and channel bindings.


Working Group Summary

  The journey within the working group for this document and the
  technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process
  than the norm.  However, the results are that many of the features
  have been implemented independently and the feedback has been
  effectively folded back into this document.  Thus the document
  quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed
  thoughfully and with working group consensus.
 
Document Quality

  From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been
  longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation
  feedback and the results have been a high quality document.
  The editing and feedback has been done by experience working
  group members with input from the entire community.
  Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair,
  am very pleased with the results.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Martin Stiemerling


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer
throughout the process of document/protocol development.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

See main NFSv4.2 shepherding document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The document shepherd has not outstanding concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Not applicable.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is solid working group consensus for these documents.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA section is aligned with document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Not applicable.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns
with XDR syntax and standards.