Subject: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 19:40:36 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the SecDir review about removing the nested references in
the security considerations section.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg07386.html

    The security considerations section does exist and states that
    file attribute extensions adds no new concerns than that of file
data
    and named attributes.  It defers to the security considerations of
application
    data in NFSv4.2 (RFC 7862), which refers to NFSv4.1 (RFC 5661).
    5661 discusses possible MITM and down-grade attacks and how to 
    mitigate them with RPCSEC_GSS (integrity or privacy services).  I
agree
    with this assertion, though I'd rather have the draft reference 5661
directly
    or RFC 7530.

And support EKR's discuss.