xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-03]

To: markgw@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-03]
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:20:47 +1000
Cc: trev <trev@xxxxxxx>, "Kevin G. Snow" <kgsnow@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <48A01140.3070306@xxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <48A01140.3070306@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
whoops - fwd'd the wrong message - ignore.

Mark Goodwin wrote:

Trev, Kevin, whomever ... has anyone changed anything recently
regarding filtering in-line URLs posted to the xfs@oss list?

Thanks
-- Mark

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-03
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:05:34 +0300
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@xxxxxxxx>

Section 1, paragraph 0:
RPCSEC_GSS version 2 (RPCSEC_GSSv2) is the same as RPCSEC_GSS
version
   1 (RPCSEC_GSSv1) except that support for channel bindings has been
   added.

  I'd be good to add a citation to [2] for RPCSEC_GSSv1 and RFC5056 for
  "channel bindings." We can do that with an RFC Editor Note - send me
  one.


Section 7., paragraph 1:
   The security considerations are the same as [2].

  This document is all about applying a security mechanism (channel
  bindings) to [2]. Surely this raises new security considerations?
  If not, please explain why not - this is surely something the
security
  directorate will want to know.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4


--

 Mark Goodwin                                  markgw@xxxxxxx
 Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP    Phone: +61-3-99631937
 SGI Australian Software Group           Cell: +61-4-18969583
-------------------------------------------------------------


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>