Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd: Spencer Shepler (email@example.com)
Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label Formats
Note: as background for this review, please review
"Requirements for Labeled NFS" published as RFC 7204http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7204.txt
(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 RFC is being requested for this I-D.
The purpose of this document was to provide an IANA registry
to coordinate different label format specifications within
(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:
This Internet-Draft outlines the high-level framework
necessary for the integration of flexible Mandatory Access
Control (MAC) functionality into NFSv4. It allocates
initial identifiers for the existing different label formats.
Working Group Summary:
After publishing the requirements for Labeled NFS (as RFC 7204)
and preparing for the upcoming minor version (NFSv4.2) with
Labeled NFS support, there has been a broad consensus to
support a registry of Label Format Specifiers.
The initial assignments captured in this Internet Draft
are built from a long history of operating systems security
structure and use. This document captures the best method
through years of implementation in other file system contexts
along with the implementation in SELinux of an NFS feature set
much like what is captured in the requirements. The content
of this document has received quality feedback and review
throughout its life.
Spencer Shepler (NFSv4 WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
Martin Stiemerling is the Responsible Area Director.
(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 document shepherd has reviewed the document in full
(intermediate drafts and the final version). This version is
ready for IETF review and publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC)
Security Label Formats I-D covers the topic in the
appropriate depth. It assigns a subset of specifications
based on historical deployments of the feature set
and the applicability to the NFSv4 protocol.
(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
Given this document deals with a security feature set, the
security directorate should provide a review as part of its
normal review of I-Ds. There are no concerns other than
ensuring that all applicable existing specfications are
assigned an initial value.
(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.
No outstanding concerns exist for this document.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No. No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
(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 this document.
(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.)
There is no threat of appeal in regards to this document or
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
There are informative reference issues but they can be handled
during the IESG review process.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are minor issues with the nformative references that will
be corrected during the initial IESG review process.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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
IANA section has been reviewed and there will be a minor
change in the I-D removing the initially requested actions.
(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.
(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.