Skip to main content

Pseudo-flavors for Remote Procedure Calls with Transport Layer Security
draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-pseudoflavors-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Chuck Lever
Last updated 2021-12-05
Stream (None)
Formats plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-pseudoflavors-00
Network File System Version 4                                   C. Lever
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track                         5 December 2021
Expires: 8 June 2022

Pseudo-flavors for Remote Procedure Calls with Transport Layer Security
                draft-cel-nfsv4-rpc-tls-pseudoflavors-00

Abstract

   Recent innovations in Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transport layer
   security enable broad deployment of encryption and mutual peer
   authentication when exchanging RPC messages.  These security
   mechanisms can protect peers who continue to use the AUTH_SYS RPC
   auth flavor, which is not cryptographically secure, on open networks.
   This document introduces several RPC auth pseudo-flavors and other
   mechanisms that an RPC service can use to indicate transport layer
   security requirements for accessing that service.

Note

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this draft occurs on the NFSv4 working group mailing
   list (nfsv4@ietf.org), archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/. Working Group
   information is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/
   about/.

   Submit suggestions and changes as pull requests at
   https://github.com/chucklever/i-d-rpc-tls-pseudoflavors.
   Instructions are on that page.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 June 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  RPC Auth Pseudo-flavors for Transport Layer Security  . . . .   4
     3.1.  Definitions of New Pseudo-flavors . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Server Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Channel Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  TLS Channel Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  SSHv2 Channel Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Channel Binding for RDMA Transports . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  NFS Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Network File System version 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Network File System version 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.2.1.  NFSv4 State Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  New RPC Auth Flavors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Pseudo-flavors for Secure AUTH_NONE . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.3.  Pseudo-flavors for Secure AUTH_SYS  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

1.  Introduction

   Each RPC transaction may be associated with a user and a set of
   groups.  That transaction's RPC auth flavor determines how the user/
   groups are identified and whether they are authenticated.  Peers
   which host applications and RPC services may also be identified and
   authenicated in each RPC transaction, again depending on the
   transaction's RPC auth flavor [RFC5531].

   Not all flavors provide peer and user identification and
   authentication.  For example, the traditional RPC auth flavor
   AUTH_NONE identifies no user or group and no authentication of users
   or peers.  The traditional RPC auth flavor AUTH_SYS provides
   identification of peers, users, and groups, but does not provide
   authentication of any of these.

   Moreover, unlike some GSS security services, these RPC auth flavors
   provide no confidentiality or integrity checking services.  Therefore
   AUTH_NONE and AUTH_SYS are considered insecure.

   Mutual peer authentication and encryption provided at the transport
   layer can make the use of AUTH_NONE and AUTH_SYS more secure.  An RPC
   service might want to indicate to its clients that it will not allow
   access via AUTH_NONE or AUTH_SYS unless transport layer security
   services are in place.  To do that, this document specifies several
   RPC auth pseudo-flavors that upper layers such as NFS [RFC8881] can
   use to enforce stronger security when unauthenticated RPC auth
   flavors are in use.

   The author expects that, in addition to RPC-with-TLS as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls], other novel RPC transports will eventually
   appear that provide similar transport layer security features.  These
   transports can benefit from the pseudo-flavors defined in this
   document, or this approach can be extended if other features require
   it.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document adopts the terminology introduced in Section 3 of
   [RFC6973] and assumes a working knowledge of the Remote Procedure
   Call (RPC) version 2 protocol [RFC5531] and the Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) protocol [RFC8446].

   This document adheres to the convention that a "client" is a network
   host that actively initiates an association, and a "server" is a
   network host that passively accepts an association request.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   An "RPC auth flavor" is a set of protocol elements that can identify
   a peer and a user, and possibly authenticate either or both.  The
   distinction between RPC auth flavors and pseudo-flavors is discussed
   in Section 13.4.2 of [RFC5531].

   RPC documentation historically refers to the authentication of a
   connecting host as "machine authentication" or "host authentication".
   TLS documentation refers to the same as "peer authentication".  The
   current document uses only "peer authentication".

   The term "user authentication" in the current document refers
   specifically to the RPC caller's credential provided in the "cred"
   and "verf" fields in each RPC Call.

   This document uses the term "insecure RPC auth flavor" (or "insecure
   flavor" for short) to refer to a class of RPC auth flavors which
   provide no user or peer authentication.  Two prime examples of an
   insecure flavor are AUTH_NONE and AUTH_SYS.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  RPC Auth Pseudo-flavors for Transport Layer Security

   Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls] introduces a special RPC auth
   flavor known as AUTH_TLS.  This RPC auth flavor is used only in a
   NULL procedure that probes the presence of support for RPC-with-TLS,
   and acts as a STARTTLS barrier.

   This auth flavor does not carry the identity of the peer or a user.
   RPC clients do not use this RPC auth flavor to authenticate users in
   RPC Calls for non-NULL RPC procedures.

   Once transport layer security has been established between two RPC
   peers, an RPC client can use insecure flavors when forming RPC Calls
   with knowledge that the RPC server is known and trusted, and without
   concern that the communication can be altered or monitored.

   In some cases an RPC server might want to restrict access to only RPC
   clients that have authenticated, or only when encryption protects
   communication.  The pseudo-flavors defined below enable RPC servers
   to indicate and enforce access restrictions of this type.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

3.1.  Definitions of New Pseudo-flavors

   Using the RPC auth flavor registry instantiated in [RFC5531] gives us
   leeway to introduce a narrow basic set of pseudoflavors in this
   document and then expand them, via additional documents, as needs
   arise.

   This document specifies several new RPC auth pseudo-flavors that
   servers may advertise to clients and that clients may use in
   individual RPC transactions.  These pseudo-flavors can be used with
   any network transport service that provides cryptographically secure
   authentication or encyrption, as follows:

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_NONE_MPA indicates that the
      client may present an AUTH_NONE credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if both peers have mutually authenticated.  Encryption
      of traffic between these peers is not required.

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_NONE_ENC indicates that the
      client may present an AUTH_NONE credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if traffic between these peers is encrypted.  Mutual
      peer authentication is not required.

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_NONE_MPA_ENC indicates that
      the client may present an AUTH_NONE credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if both peers have mutually authenticated and traffic
      between these peers is encrypted.

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_SYS_MPA indicates that the
      client may present an AUTH_SYS credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if both peers have mutually authenticated.  Encryption
      of traffic between these peers is not required.

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_SYS_ENC indicates that the
      client may present an AUTH_SYS credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if traffic between these peers is encrypted.  Mutual
      peer authentication is not required.

   *  The new RPC auth pseudo-flavor AUTH_SYS_MPA_ENC indicates that the
      client may present an AUTH_SYS credential and verifier in RPC
      Calls only if both peers have mutually authenticated and traffic
      between these peers is encrypted.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

3.2.  Server Responses

   When an RPC Call using one of these pseudo-flavors arrives via a
   connection-oriented transport, the RPC server MUST respond on the
   same connection using the same level of transport security
   guarantees.  When an RPC Call arrives via a connectionless transport,
   the RPC server MUST respond using the level of transport security
   layer guarantees that the RPC Call's RPC auth flavor requires.  If
   the server does not comply with the transport layer security
   guarantees that the client requested, the client MUST drop that RPC
   Reply without processing it.

   If an RPC client sends an RPC Call using one of these pseudo-flavors
   and the underlying transport does not provide the required additional
   security services as indicated above, the RPC server MUST reject the
   RPC Call and respond with a reply_stat of MSG_DENIED, a reject_stat
   of AUTH_ERR, and an auth_stat of AUTH_TOOWEAK.

4.  Channel Binding

   Certain aspects of transport layer security are not new.  A
   deployment might choose to run NFS on a virtual private network
   established via an ssh tunnel or over IPsec, for example.  The
   Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API)
   specification [RFC2743] recognized the use of security provided by
   transport services underlying GSS with the introduction of channel
   binding.  [RFC5056] further describes channel binding as a concept
   that

      ...allows applications to establish that the two end-points of a
      secure channel at one network layer are the same as at a higher
      layer by binding authentication at the higher layer to the channel
      at the lower layer.  This allows applications to delegate session
      protection to lower layers, which has various performance
      benefits.

   We are particularly interested in ensuring that the mutual
   authentication done during a TLS handshake (most recently specified
   in [RFC8446]) on a transport service that handles RPC traffic can be
   recognized and used by RPC consumers for securely authenticating the
   communicating RPC peers.

   Section 7 of [RFC5929] identifies a set of API characteristics that
   RPC and its underlying transport provide to RPC consumers.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

4.1.  TLS Channel Binding

   [RFC5929] defines several TLS channel binding types that RPC
   consumers can use to determine whether appropriate security is
   available and in place to protect RPC transactions that continue to
   use insecure RPC auth flavors such as AUTH_SYS.

   When used with a Certificate handshake message, the 'tls-server-end-
   point' channel binding type as defined in Section 4 of [RFC5929]
   serves as authentication for securing pseudo-flavors that require
   mutual peer authentication.

   The RPC-with-TLS specification requires the use of peer
   authentication and TLS session encryption, so the presence of TLS
   under an RPC transport is enough to secure pseudo-flavors that
   require both mutual peer authentication and encryption.

   Moreover, in the particular case of TLS, when a handshake fails, both
   peers are made aware of the failure reason via the Finished message.
   The failure reason can then be communicated to the RPC consumer and
   the local administrator to enable specific corrective action.

   For instance, an RPC server's local security policy might require
   that the RPC client's IP address or hostname match its certificates
   Subject Alt Name (SAN).  This is not always possible if the client's
   IP address and hostname are assigned dynamically.  When such a server
   causes a handshake failure, the administrators can be made aware that
   the server's SAN policy restricted access, and corrective action can
   then be taken.

4.2.  SSHv2 Channel Binding

   When RPC traverses an SSHv2 tunnel established between an RPC server
   and an RPC client, the 'tls-unique' channel binding type as defined
   in Section 3 of [RFC5929] can be used to authenticate peer endpoints
   and provide appropriate confidentiality.

4.3.  Channel Binding for RDMA Transports

   As of this writing, RPC-over-RDMA [RFC8166] does not provide a
   transport layer security service.  However, Section 5 of [RFC5056]
   suggests a mechanism by which channel binding can protect RDDP
   [RFC5040], the protocol that handles remote direct data placement for
   the iWARP family of protocols.  The transport layer underlying RDDP
   might use IPsec [RFC6071], TLS [RFC8446], or Encapsulating Security
   Payload (ESP) [RFC4303].

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

5.  NFS Examples

   This document defines new protocol elements that any RPC consumer can
   employ.  This section presents examples of how a commonly-used RPC
   consumer, NFS, can make use of these new pseudo-flavors.

5.1.  Network File System version 3

   NFSv3 clients query which RPC auth flavors a server requires using
   the MNT procedure, defined in Appendix I of [RFC1813] as part of the
   MOUNT RPC program.

   To require NFSv3 clients to employ underlying transport security when
   using AUTH_NONE or AUTH_SYS, the NFS server includes one or more of
   the new RPC auth pseudo-flavors defined in Section 8 in the
   auth_flavors list that is part of a MNT response.

   For example, an NFSv3 server may list AUTH_SYS_ENC in a MNT response,
   without also listing AUTH_SYS.

5.2.  Network File System version 4

   NFSv4 clients query which RPC auth flavors a server requires using
   the SECINFO or SECINFO_NO_NAME procedures, as defined in [RFC8881].

   To require NFSv4 clients to employ underlying transport security when
   using AUTH_NONE or AUTH_SYS, the NFS server includes one or more of
   the new RPC auth pseudo-flavors defined in Section 8 in the
   SECINFO4resok list that is part of a SECINFO or SECINFO_NO_NAME
   response.

   Once the peers have inspected their endpoint configurations to ensure
   that any required peer authentication has been done and encryption
   has been put into place, they can exchange RPC transactions using the
   traditional AUTH_SYS or AUTH_NONE flavors in each RPC.

5.2.1.  NFSv4 State Protection

   Note: This section updates RFC 8881.

      |  An alternate approach might place the updates described in this
      |  section in rfc5661bis.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   Section 2.4.3 of [RFC8881] introduces how a server authorizes a
   client to create a new lease or replace a previous one.  This
   mechanism prevents clients for maliciously or unintentionally wiping
   open and lock state for another client.  Section 2.10.8.3 of that
   document further specifies how the server responds to unauthorized
   state changes.

   When used with a Certificate handshake message, the 'tls-server-end-
   point' channel binding type as defined in Section 4 of [RFC5929] can
   provide protection similar to SP4_MACH_CRED.

   The text of the first bullet in Section 2.4.3 of [RFC8881] is
   modified to include AUTH_NONE_MPA_ENC or AUTH_SYS_MPA_ENC, as
   follows:

   *  The principal that created the client ID for the client owner is
      the same as the principal that is sending the EXCHANGE_ID
      operation.  Note that if the client ID was created with
      SP4_MACH_CRED state protection (Section 18.35), either:

      -  The principal MUST be based on RPCSEC_GSS authentication, the
         RPCSEC_GSS service used MUST be integrity or privacy, and the
         same GSS mechanism and principal MUST be used as that used when
         the client ID was created.  Or,

      -  The principal MUST be based on AUTH_SYS_MPA_ENC, and the server
         MUST use channel binding to verify the identity of the client
         peer when performing any of the operations specified in the
         spa_mach_ops bitmaps.  Or,

      -  The principal MUST be based on AUTH_NONE_MPA_ENC, and the
         server MUST use channel binding to verify the identity of the
         client peer when performing any of the operations specified in
         the spa_mach_ops bitmaps.

   Subsequent discussion of SP4_MACH_CRED in [RFC8881] in Sections
   2.10.5.1, 2.10.8.3, and 2.10.11.3 would need similar additions.

6.  Implementation Status

      |  This section is to be removed before publishing this document
      |  as an RFC.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.

   Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
   does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has
   been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
   by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not be
   construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   There are currently no known implementations of the new RPC pseudo-
   flavors requested by this document.

7.  Security Considerations

   Discussion of shortcomings peculiar to the AUTH_SYS RPC auth flavor
   appears in the final paragraph of Appendix A of [RFC5531] and in
   Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls].

   When implementing or deploying transport layer security to protect an
   upper-level RPC protocol:

   *  RPC clients that support transport layer security SHOULD use it
      whenever possible.  Typically the only reason not to is when
      performance is important and reasonable security can be provided
      in some other way.

   *  RPC clients that support transport layer security and have the
      ability to authenticate SHOULD do so.  The only reason not to
      authenticate is when authentication and encryption can only be
      enabled together, performance is paramount, and there are other
      available mechanisms that can provide peer authentication
      securely.

   The pseudo-flavors defined in this document enable RPC servers to
   indicate required levels of security so that RPC clients can make
   informed and autonomous decisions that balance performance and
   scalability against security needs.

   Important security considerations specific to the use of channel
   binding are discussed throughout [RFC5056] and in Section 10 of
   [RFC5929].

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

8.  IANA Considerations

      |  RFC Editor: In the following subsections, please replace RFC-
      |  TBD with the RFC number assigned to this document.
      |  Furthermore, please remove this Editor's Note before this
      |  document is published.

8.1.  New RPC Auth Flavors

   Following Appendix B of [RFC5531], this document requests several new
   entries in the RPC Authentication Flavor Numbers
   (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpc-authentication-numbers/rpc-
   authentication-numbers.xhtml) registry.  The purpose of these new
   flavors is to indicate the use of transport layer encryption or
   mutual peer authentication with insecure RPC auth flavors.  All new
   flavors described in the sections below are pseudo-flavors.

8.2.  Pseudo-flavors for Secure AUTH_NONE

   The fields in the new entries are assigned as follows:

   +===================+==============+=====+================+=========+
   | Identifier String | Flavor Name  |Value|  Description   |Reference|
   +===================+==============+=====+================+=========+
   | AUTH_NONE_MPA     |   NONE_MPA   | TBD | AUTH_NONE with |  RFC_TBD|
   |                   |              |     |  mutual peer   |         |
   |                   |              |     | authentication |         |
   +-------------------+--------------+-----+----------------+---------+
   | AUTH_NONE_ENC     |   NONE_ENC   | TBD | AUTH_NONE with |  RFC_TBD|
   |                   |              |     |transport layer |         |
   |                   |              |     |   encryption   |         |
   +-------------------+--------------+-----+----------------+---------+
   | AUTH_NONE_MPA_ENC | NONE_MPA_ENC | TBD | AUTH_NONE with |  RFC_TBD|
   |                   |              |     |      peer      |         |
   |                   |              |     | authentication |         |
   |                   |              |     | and encryption |         |
   +-------------------+--------------+-----+----------------+---------+

                                  Table 1

   Please allocate the numeric values from the range 400000-409999.

8.3.  Pseudo-flavors for Secure AUTH_SYS

   The fields in the new entries are assigned as follows:

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   +==================+=============+=====+================+===========+
   |Identifier String | Flavor Name |Value|  Description   | Reference |
   +==================+=============+=====+================+===========+
   |AUTH_SYS_MPA      |   SYS_MPA   | TBD | AUTH_SYS with  |   RFC_TBD |
   |                  |             |     |  mutual peer   |           |
   |                  |             |     | authentication |           |
   +------------------+-------------+-----+----------------+-----------+
   |AUTH_SYS_ENC      |   SYS_ENC   | TBD | AUTH_SYS with  |   RFC_TBD |
   |                  |             |     |transport layer |           |
   |                  |             |     |   encryption   |           |
   +------------------+-------------+-----+----------------+-----------+
   |AUTH_SYS_MPA_ENC  | SYS_MPA_ENC | TBD | AUTH_SYS with  |   RFC_TBD |
   |                  |             |     |      peer      |           |
   |                  |             |     | authentication |           |
   |                  |             |     | and encryption |           |
   +------------------+-------------+-----+----------------+-----------+

                                  Table 2

   Please allocate the numeric values from the range 410000-419999.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls]
              Myklebust, T. and C. Lever, "Towards Remote Procedure Call
              Encryption By Default", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-11, 23 November 2020,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-
              rpc-tls-11>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5531]  Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
              Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531,
              May 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5531>.

   [RFC5929]  Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings
              for TLS", RFC 5929, DOI 10.17487/RFC5929, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5929>.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8881]  Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS)
              Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8881>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1813]  Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
              Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1813>.

   [RFC2743]  Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
              Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2743, January 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2743>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4303>.

   [RFC5040]  Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
              Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5040>.

   [RFC5056]  Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure
              Channels", RFC 5056, DOI 10.17487/RFC5056, November 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5056>.

   [RFC6071]  Frankel, S. and S. Krishnan, "IP Security (IPsec) and
              Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap", RFC 6071,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6071, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6071>.

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft           RPC TLS Pseudo-flavors            December 2021

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973>.

   [RFC8166]  Lever, C., Ed., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
              Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version
              1", RFC 8166, DOI 10.17487/RFC8166, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8166>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgments

   David Noveck is responsible for the basic architecture of this
   proposal.  The author is also grateful to Bill Baker, Rick Macklem,
   Greg Marsden, and Martin Thomson for their input and support.

   Special thanks to Transport Area Directors Martin Duke and
   Zaheduzzaman Sarker, NFSV4 Working Group Chairs David Noveck and
   Brian Pawlowski, and NFSV4 Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes for
   their guidance and oversight.

Author's Address

   Charles Lever
   Oracle Corporation
   United States of America

   Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com

Lever                      Expires 8 June 2022                 [Page 14]