Skip to main content

Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label Formats
RFC 7569

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'In the past, Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very rigid policies that were implemented …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'In the past, Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very rigid policies that were implemented in particular protocols and platforms. As MAC systems become more widely deployed, additional flexibility in mechanism and policy will be required. While traditional trusted systems implemented Multi-Level Security (MLS) and integrity models, modern systems have expanded to include such technologies as type enforcement. Due to the wide range of policies and mechanisms that need to be accommodated, it is unlikely that the use of a single security label format and model will be viable.

To allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats to co-exist in a network, this document creates a registry of label format specifications. This registry contains label format identifiers and provides for the association of each such identifier with a corresponding extensive document outlining the exact syntax and use of the particular label format.')
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from "Spencer Shepler"  to (None)
2015-07-16
06 (System) IANA registries were updated to include RFC7569
2015-07-14
06 (System) RFC published
2015-07-13
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-06-01
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-05-29
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-04-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-04-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-04-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-04-22
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-04-22
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-04-22
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-04-21
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-04-21
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-04-21
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2015-04-21
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-04-21
06 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2015-04-21
06 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2015-04-21
06 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-04-20
06 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-06.txt
2015-04-09
05 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Version -05 addresses my most significant comment, and thanks very much for that.

Some non-blocking, minor comments here:

Very much a nit, but …
[Ballot comment]
Version -05 addresses my most significant comment, and thanks very much for that.

Some non-blocking, minor comments here:

Very much a nit, but drafts have this sort of thing all the time, and we should probably say something more generally (I think I'll post to the IETF discussion list about the general point):

In the abstract...

  To allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats to co-exist in a
  network, this document proposes a registry of label format
  specifications.  This registry would contain label format identifiers
  and would provide for the association of each such identifier with a
  corresponding extensive document document outlining the exact syntax
  and use of the particular label format.

When the draft was written, it was "proposing" a registry, and should that registry be created it "would contain" and "would provide" things.  But it's now up for approval for RFC publication, and these characterizations are inapt; when it's published, the registry will have been created and will be providing all that.  Drafts should be written -- at least by the time they enter last call -- to have the right tone as published RFCs.  Here, I suggest these changes:

1. "proposes" -> "creates"
2. "would contain" -> "contains"
3. "would provide" -> "provides"

-- Section 5 --
As best I can tell, this question from IANA wasn't answered in the last call discussion, and it needs to be:

> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be placed at an
> existing URL? If not, should the title of the new webpage be "NFS
> Security Label Format Selection," or do you expect other registries
> that would require a different title to be placed there? Also, should
> it be filed under a new or an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols?

IANA will sort this out with you in any case, but it would be good for the document to say where you would like IANA to put the registry.

In Table 1, I think "Available for IANA Assignment" would be better than "Reserved for IANA Assignment", but it's a really small point.

In Section 5.2, I suggest using the full name for the registry (add the word "Security").
2015-04-09
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-04-09
05 Thomas Haynes IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-04-09
05 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-05.txt
2015-04-09
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2015-04-09
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-04-08
04 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-04-08
04 Alexey Melnikov Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2015-04-08
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-04-08
04 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

I think there is a possibly missing security consideration in
section 4 - if two label formats "overlap" so that a value for …
[Ballot comment]

I think there is a possibly missing security consideration in
section 4 - if two label formats "overlap" so that a value for
one could represent a (different) value for the other and if
the label format specifier is not somehow bound to the
packet/object, then some confusion attacks may be possible.
The mitigation I think is to either (maybe implicitly) bind
the format specifier into the object/label or to ensure that
label values cannot be valid for other label format
specifiers. (Note that attacks here are probably only
interesting in highly specific cases, so it's not a huge deal,
but maybe worth a mention.)
2015-04-08
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-04-07
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-04-07
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-04-07
04 Barry Leiba
[Ballot discuss]
Setting up this registry is a fine thing, and I just have two points I'd like to sort out before we approve this: …
[Ballot discuss]
Setting up this registry is a fine thing, and I just have two points I'd like to sort out before we approve this:

-- Section 5.2 --

1. Is it your intent that the Designated Expert still has to do expert review when the specification is a Standards Track RFC?

2. You have no instructions to guide the Designated Expert; some instructions are needed.  Is the DE expected to just give a basic sanity check to the specification?  Is more thorough review of the specification expected?  Will the DE be making any judgments about whether the specified label format is useful, or is or isn't a "good idea", or is the DE expected to approve any request with a suitable specification?  Both DEs and applicants need to know what's expected.
2015-04-07
04 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Some non-blocking, minor comments here:

Very much a nit, but drafts have this sort of thing all the time, and we should probably …
[Ballot comment]
Some non-blocking, minor comments here:

Very much a nit, but drafts have this sort of thing all the time, and we should probably say something more generally (I think I'll post to the IETF discussion list about the general point):

In the abstract...

  To allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats to co-exist in a
  network, this document proposes a registry of label format
  specifications.  This registry would contain label format identifiers
  and would provide for the association of each such identifier with a
  corresponding extensive document document outlining the exact syntax
  and use of the particular label format.

When the draft was written, it was "proposing" a registry, and should that registry be created it "would contain" and "would provide" things.  But it's now up for approval for RFC publication, and these characterizations are inapt; when it's published, the registry will have been created and will be providing all that.  Drafts should be written -- at least by the time they enter last call -- to have the right tone as published RFCs.  Here, I suggest these changes:

1. "proposes" -> "creates"
2. "would contain" -> "contains"
3. "would provide" -> "provides"

-- Section 5 --
As best I can tell, this question from IANA wasn't answered in the last call discussion, and it needs to be:

> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be placed at an
> existing URL? If not, should the title of the new webpage be "NFS
> Security Label Format Selection," or do you expect other registries
> that would require a different title to be placed there? Also, should
> it be filed under a new or an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols?

IANA will sort this out with you in any case, but it would be good for the document to say where you would like IANA to put the registry.

In Table 1, I think "Available for IANA Assignment" would be better than "Reserved for IANA Assignment", but it's a really small point.

In Section 5.2, I suggest using the full name for the registry (add the word "Security").
2015-04-07
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-04-06
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-04-06
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-06
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-04-06
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-04-04
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-02
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-04-02
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-03-27
04 Pearl Liang IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-03-27
04 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-04.txt
2015-03-26
03 Thomas Haynes IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2015-03-26
03 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-03.txt
2015-03-26
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot has been issued
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Created "Approve" ballot
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Notification list changed to "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, nfsv4@ietf.org from "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09
2015-03-26
02 Martin Stiemerling Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-03-02
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dacheng Zhang.
2015-02-17
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2015-02-17
02 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2015-02-16
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-02-13
02 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2015-02-12
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2015-02-12
02 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

NOTE: IANA has a question for the ADs. See below.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02 and has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

NOTE: IANA has a question for the ADs. See below.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02 and has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that this document requires a single action upon approval.

Upon approval, this document creates a new registry called "NFS Security Label Format Selection." This registry will be maintained via the Specification Required policy defined in RFC 5226.

The registry consists of four fields: Label Format Specifier, Label Description, Status, and Reference.

These are the registry's initial values:

+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+
| Label Format Specifier | Description | Status | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | - | [this document] |
| 1 - 127 | Reserved for Private Use | - | [this document] |
| 128 - 255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | - | [this document] |
| 256 | CIPSO (tag type #1) | active | [draft-ietf-cipso-ipsecurity-01] |
| 257 | CALIPSO ([RFC5570]) | active | [RFC5570] |
| 258 | FLASK Security Context  | active | [FLASK99] |
| 259 | IPSO | active | [RFC1108] |
| 260 - 65535 | Unassigned | - | - |
+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+

QUESTION FOR ADs/AUTHORS --> Does the expired I-D listed as a reference for CIPSO meet the criteria for registration? According to RFC 5226, the "Specification Required" procedure used to maintain this registry requires a "permanent and readily available" reference. 

QUESTION FOR AUTHORS/CHAIRS --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be placed at an existing URL? If not, should the title of the new webpage be "NFS Security Label Format Selection," or do you expect other registries that would require a different title to be placed there? Also, should it be filed under a new or an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols?

QUESTION FOR AUTHORS --> Please provide a URL for [FLASK99], if available.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-02-10
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-02-10
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-02-05
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-02-05
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-02-05
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang
2015-02-05
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang
2015-02-02
02 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-02-02
02 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registry Specification for Mandatory Access …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label Formats) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security
  Label Formats'
  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 2015-02-16. 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


  In the past Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very
  rigid policies which were implemented in particular protocols and
  platforms.  As MAC systems became more widely deployed, additional
  flexibility in mechanism and policy will be required.  While
  traditional trusted systems implemented Multi-Level Security (MLS)
  and integrity models, modern systems have expanded to include
  technologies such as type enforcement.  Due to the wide range of
  policies and mechanisms which need to be accommodated, it is unlikely
  that use of a single security label format and model will be viable.

  To allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats to co-exist in a
  network, this document proposes a registry of label format
  specifications.  This registry would contain label format identifiers
  and would provide for the association of each such identifier with a
  corresponding extensive document document outlining the exact syntax
  and use of the particular label format.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry/ballot/


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


2015-02-02
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-02-02
02 Martin Stiemerling Last call was requested
2015-02-02
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot approval text was generated
2015-02-02
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was generated
2015-02-02
02 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-02-02
02 Martin Stiemerling Last call announcement was generated
2015-01-30
02 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-01-30
02 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02.txt
2015-01-30
01 Martin Stiemerling
I have one major point:
The new registry is named "Security Label Format Selection Registry". This is ok in principle, but it could be misunderstood …
I have one major point:
The new registry is named "Security Label Format Selection Registry". This is ok in principle, but it could be misunderstood as the big all protocols security label registry.

How about saying "NFS Security Label Format Selection Registry"? Just to precise that this is for NFS or even NFSv4 (but I guess that could be too narrow).


One minor, just copied from the ID-nits tool output:
  == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC boilerplate text.
2015-01-30
01 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2014-12-10
01 Martin Stiemerling IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler
Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label …
Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (sshepler@microsoft.com)

Internet Draft:

Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label Formats
draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-01-shepherd.txt

Note: as background for this review, please review
"Requirements for Labeled NFS" published as RFC 7204
http://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
        NFSv4.


(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 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.

Document Quality:

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.

Personnel:

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 IESG.

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
took place.

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?

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.  No IPR disclosures have been filed in reference to this
document.

(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
its contents.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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?

See 13).

(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.

Not applicable.

(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 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.

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.
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler Responsible AD changed to Martin Stiemerling
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler Changed document writeup
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler Notification list changed to "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>
2014-11-18
01 Spencer Shepler Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler
2014-09-16
01 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-01.txt
2014-05-02
00 Thomas Haynes New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-00.txt