Requirements for NFSv4 Multi-Domain Namespace Deployment
draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-11

[Ballot comment]
Agree to other comments about clarity. As also mentioned by Ben, I believe this should probably update rfc7530 (and maybe even rfc5661) and the updates made should then be indicated clearly.

[Ballot comment]
Everything that came to mind when reading this draft has already been raised in Kathleen's (Russ's), Stephen's, and Jari's comments. That doesn't really need a +1, but "+1". ;)

[Ballot comment]

- general: I agree with Kathleen who agrees with Russ'
secdir review. [1] I was left puzzled as to how this
would be useful to readers. But I've no objection if
that's felt to be the case. However, I'd really
encourage the editors/WG/AD to consider that a
number of folks (who are familiar with GSS etc.) have
found this draft pretty unclear.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06642.html

- abstract: 1st sentence seems unwieldy - it puzzled me
anyway;-)

- (various places): Would "identifier syntax" not be
better than "identity syntax"? There's no need to
bikeshed on it, but I do prefer the latter a good bit in
case that helps:-)

- 5.3: Would that "must never" in the 2nd last para be
clearer as an RFC2119 "MUST NOT"? (Just checking.)

- 6.1: Are there any cases of domain names that allow
for escaping or have other syntatic features that
involve more than just octet string comparisons to check
domain name equality? I don't think there are, so just
checking. If there were, then you might need to say
something about that somewhere.

[Ballot comment]
I am a little bit confused about the purpose of this draft. My confusion is probably related to Brian's Gen-ART comments.

Specifically, who/what do the normative requirements in section 6 apply to. Are these implementation requirements or deployment requirements? If the former, should this update any of the nfsv4 RFCs? If deployment, then I also wonder why this is PS and not BCP.

[Ballot comment]
I do note the BCP/PS question from Brian in his Gen-ART review. My own opinion is that BCP would have equal strength, and if it were up to me, I’d pick that category. However, I’m not religious about this — clearly you could go two ways on this.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for following the advice in the SecDir review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06652.html

I think the draft could be a bit more clear, following Russ' comments a bit further.  I had similar questions in this version, but then read his review and the responses.  I'll leave this as a comment for the AD since my comments would be similar to those already made.  If the draft could read a bit better, that would be helpful.

[Ballot comment]
I think using more examples in the document would improve readability.

A couple of very small nits with this document:

"mulit-domain" typo at least 4 times.

LDAP reference should probably be listed on first mention. Similar for Kerberos.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-08.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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines'
  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 2016-07-06. 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.

Abstract


  This document discusses issues relevant to the deployment of the
  NFSv4 protocols in situations allowing for the construction of an
  NFSv4 file namespace supporting the use of multiple NFSv4 domains and
  utilizing multi-domain capable file systems.  Also described are
  constraints on name resolution and security services appropriate to
  the administration of such a system.  Such a namespace is a suitable
  way to enable a Federated File System supporting the use of multiple
  NFSv4 domains.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs/ballot/


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

This shepherding write-up is for the following I-D:

draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-07.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


(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 discusses issues relevant to the deployment of the
  NFSv4 protocols in situations allowing for the construction of an
  NFSv4 file namespace supporting the use of multiple NFSv4 domains and
  utilizing multi-domain capable file systems.  Also described are
  constraints on name resolution and security services appropriate to
  the administration of such a system.  Such a namespace is a suitable
  way to enable a Federated File System supporting the use of multiple
  NFSv4 domains.

Working Group Summary

  The working group has been supportive of this work with little contention
  over the approach represented within.  This work is a result of direct
  experience of the authors (and more broadly in the WG) of managing
  multi-domain environments with the result of what solutions are needed
  and what is workable.

Document Quality

  The construction of this document has taken time and the overall content
  and quality are very high.  There were good comments and updates made
  during the last call process and it is very ready for for review by the IESG.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler
  Area Director: Spencer Dawkins

(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 and followed the creation and review
  process within the working group.  This document is ready to move forward
  to IESG review.

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

  No concerns from the Shepherd.

(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.

  Given that the document deals with user identity and resulting authentication
  and authorization contexts, the security area should review the document
  for any relevant feedback.

(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 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.

  No disclosures have been filed.

(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? 

  Strong consensus within the working group 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.)

  No outstanding issues of this type exist.

(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.

  Some minor nits that authors will correct during IESG reviews, etc.

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

  None 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?

  None.  Note, however, that there are references for two I-Ds that are
  about to be published as RFCs so there will be minor updates for those.


(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.


  No.

(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).

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.