[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01                                                         
Network Working Group                                           R. Mesta
Internet-Draft                                    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Expires: August 5, 2005                                     Feb 01, 2005


                   NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations
                      draft-mesta-nfsv4-domain-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
   disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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 a "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html"

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2005.

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to elicit discussion on configuration
   schemes for determining the domain name to be used by NFSv4
   implementations that do not natively support users and groups from
   multiple domains.

   This document also describes a method by which NFSv4 clients and
   servers can discover a domain name value appropriate for qualifying
   NFSv4 user and group names, by leveraging DNS TXT resource records.



Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Proposed Configuration Scheme  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1   The _nfsv4idmapdomain DNS TXT Resource Record  . . . . . .  4
     2.2   DNS Tree Lookup Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3   IETF DNS Community Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1   multi-DNS Domain Environments with Configured TXT RR's . .  6
     3.2   multi-DNS Domain Environments w/o Configured TXT RR's  . .  6
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  IPR Notices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. Copyright Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
































Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


1.  Introduction

   Version 4 of the Network File System (NFSv4) protocol [RFC3530]
   introduces a way for clients and servers to exchange file ownership
   and ACL entry information as string names qualified with a DNS domain
   name, whereas earlier versions of the protocol used 32-bit integers
   for the same type of identifier meta data.

   Section 5.8 of [RFC3530] defines the format for string based
   identifiers which are intended to be the most flexible representation
   of file ownership between the different translation implementations.
   Further, [RFC3530] suggests that the 'domain' portion of the string
   identifier should be a DNS domain name:

      "The "dns_domain" portion of the owner string is meant to be a DNS
      domain name.  For example, user@ietf.org.  Servers should accept
      as valid a set of users for at least one domain.  A server may
      treat other domains as having no valid translations.  A more
      general service is provided when a server is capable of accepting
      users for multiple domains, or for all domains, subject to
      security constraints."

   Some NFSv4 implementations do not support the notion of domain
   qualified user and group identifiers.  These implementations are
   still required by [RFC3530] to qualify user and group names in NFSv4
   protocol data.  Additionally, these implementations can use the
   'domain' qualifier to discover user/group name space boundaries.

   However, the use of an NFSv4 client's and server's default DNS domain
   to qualify user/group names would be inappropriate on network
   configurations that use multiple DNS domains and sub-domains, but
   still use a common user/group name space throughout.  This would lead
   to user/group name recognition failures across the network at either
   client or server side due to potentially mismatched domains.  More
   succinctly, accessing NFSv4 managed files across multiple DNS domains
   can cause string identifiers to be mapped to "nobody", regardless of
   whether a common user/group name space is shared or not.

   This presents the problem of how to distribute the configuration of a
   domain name for use by NFSv4 implementations, which only deal with
   domain-agnostic identifiers, for qualifying user and group names.

   This document describes one such configuration information
   distribution method using DNS TXT resource records.







Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


2.  Proposed Configuration Scheme

   In order to mitigate NFSv4 deployment and promote the highest level
   of interoperability between NFSv4 implementations while a
   general-purpose method for mapping multi-domain user/groups to
   security identifiers is achieved, we propose a DNS TXT [RFC1464]
   resource record (RR) be adopted as convention between implementors.
   DNS RR's make the most sense since most customers manage their naming
   infrastructure via DNS.

2.1  The _nfsv4idmapdomain DNS TXT Resource Record

   As stated in [RFC1464], the general syntax for a TXT resource record
   is:

      <owner> <class> <ttl> <TXT> <"attribute name=attribute value">

   Thus, following the syntax above, we propose the specific TXT record
   <owner> name of '_nfsv4idmapdomain' in order to to minimize the
   probability of TXT record name collision and to follow established
   practices when DNS TXT records are used.  Kerberos utilizes the
   '_kerberos' DNS TXT RR <owner> name when performing realm-to-name
   mapping [KERB5].  Similarly, XFN also utilized DNS TXT records to
   hold subordinate naming system information [XFNDOC].

   Thus, the general form of DNS TXT resource record syntax for NFSv4
   domain configuration is prescribed:


         _nfsv4idmapdomain.soa_domain.  IN   TXT   "domain.name"

   where "domain.name" will be configured to the desired domain name to
   be used and/or exchanged in 'owner' and 'owner_group' attribute
   strings.

2.2  DNS Tree Lookup Traversal

   From careful examination of the proposed DNS TXT RR, it can be
   readily seen that the proposed <owner> field inherits the SOA
   record's domain.  This simple, but powerful side-effect, of having a
   DNS TXT record as the configuration scheme, allows deployments with
   multiple DNS domains to override any setting from a parent DNS
   domain.

   For example, assume a customer configuration has a top level DNS
   domain of "foo.bar" and a corresponding DNS TXT RR has been defined
   as:




Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005



         _nfsv4idmapdomain   IN   TXT   "foo.bar"

   Assume further that there are two lower level domains; "ding.foo.bar"
   and "dong.foo.bar".  These lower level DNS domains can in turn each
   define their own DNS TXT RR's in order to override the TXT record
   defined by the top level DNS domain.  To continue the example, assume
   that a DNS TXT record is only defined for domain "ding.foo.bar" and
   it is defined to be:


         _nfsv4idmapdomain   IN   TXT   "ding.ding"

   Thus, assuming the 'search' parameter on the client's
   /etc/resolv.conf file has been properly configured, a DNS TXT RR
   lookup for "_nfsv4idmapdomain.ding.foo.bar" will yield the string
   "ding.ding" whereas a lookup for the "_nfsv4idmapdomain.dong.foo.bar"
   DNS TXT RR will not yield any value and will propagate to the higher
   level domain as "_nfsv4idmapdomain.foo.bar"; At this point, the
   string "foo.bar" will be returned for lookups in domain
   "dong.foo.bar".

2.3  IETF DNS Community Considerations

   Discussion within the NFSv4 working group has supported the position
   that the use of a DNS RR is a reasonable way to distribute a common
   NFSv4 domain across a NFSv4 deployment.  However, there is widespread
   agreement that overloading a DNS TXT RR is not the proper way to
   distribute the NFSv4 domain due to the well known sub-typing problem.

   The DNS sub-typing problem limits a DNS client to query for all RR's,
   of the same type, that are available.  The client then has to sift
   thru each reply to look for the desired sub-type.  This incurs
   unnecessary overhead and is not the preferred method of extending
   DNS.

   To alleviate this problem and still utilize DNS as a distribution
   mechanism for the NFSv4 domain, a new draft will be introduced to
   propose an NFSv4 application specific RR to the IETF DNS working
   group.











Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


3.  Motivation

   As of the date of this memo, there is currently no known
   general-purpose solution for mapping multi-domain user/groups to
   security identifiers that can be leveraged.  It is also expected that
   the majority of NFSv4 customer configurations are likely to leverage
   DNS for name resolution.

   As such, the current Solaris NFSv4 implementation leverages the use
   of the aforementioned DNS TXT RR to configure an arbitrary string
   that will be used as the NFSv4 id mapping domain.  Solaris uses this
   DNS TXT RR to mitigate NFSv4 deployment at the enterprise IT level
   and it is expected to be used by system administrators to configure
   the NFSv4 mapping domain to utilize when client(s) and server(s)
   exchange 'owner' and 'owner_group' attribute data.

3.1  multi-DNS Domain Environments with Configured TXT RR's

   NFSv4 deployments within multi-DNS domain environments can leverage
   the use of the proposed DNS TXT RR to obtain an NFSv4 domain, that is
   unified across the different DNS domains, to use for the 'owner' and
   'owner_group' attribute strings.  The above will hold true whether
   the multi-DNS domain deployments share a common user/group
   administrative domain or not.

3.2  multi-DNS Domain Environments w/o Configured TXT RR's

   NFSv4 deployments within multi-DNS domain environments in which the
   DNS TXT RR has not been set up will most likely utilize the DNS
   domain itself for the 'domain' portion of the attribute strings.

   Client(s) and server(s) that interoperate within the same DNS domain
   boundary will properly map attribute strings to the local system's
   representation since a common NFSv4 domain is shared.  However,
   client(s) and server(s) that interoperate across DNS domain
   boundaries, will more than likely map the attribute strings to
   "nobody" due to mismatched NFSv4 domains.














Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


4.  Security Considerations

   While this memo raises no security issues, the use of DNSSEC
   [RFC2535] is recommended.















































Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


5.  Acknowledgments

   David Robinson, Spencer Shepler and Nicolas Williams for their
   insight and content contributions.


6.  Normative References

   [RFC1464]  Rosenbaum, R., "Using the Domain Name System To Store
              Arbitrary String Attributes", RFC 1464, May 1993.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3530]  Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
              Beame, C., Eisler, M. and D. Noveck, "Network File System
              (NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.


7.  Informative References

   [KERB5]    Garman, J., "Kerberos: The Definitive Guide, pp. 79", Aug
              2003.

   [RFC2535]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
              March 1999.

   [XFNDOC]   Solaris 2.5 Product Documentation, "DNS Text Record Format
              for XFN References", Nov 1995.


8.  Author's Address

   Rick Mesta
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   5300 Riata Park Court
   M/S: UAUS08-102
   Austin, TX  78727
   USA

   Phone: +1 512-401-1076
   Email: rick.mesta@sun.com














Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      NFSv4 Cross-Domain Considerations           Feb 2005


9.  IPR Notices

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


10.  Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.





Mesta                    Expires August 5, 2005                 [Page 9]