Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:59:22 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Towards Remote Procedure Call Encryption By Default
        Authors         : Trond Myklebust
                          Charles Lever
	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2019-11-17

Abstract:
   This document describes a mechanism that, through the use of
   opportunistic Transport Layer Security (TLS), enables encryption of
   in-transit Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transactions while
   interoperating with ONC RPC implementations that do not support this
   mechanism.  This document updates RFC 5531.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 14:09:36 -0500

Hi Spencer-

> On Nov 17, 2019, at 1:59 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 

Revision 04 of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls addresses changes requested
during the second early SecDir review. There might be a few more minor
security-related tweaks needed. The Security Directorate plans to
assign this document to Derrell Piper for the official SecDir review,
at which time we can take care of any remaining issues.

Therefore I'd like to request WGLC for this document. Please schedule
this for whenever is convenient for the Working Group. Thanks!

I also note that during IETF 105, the members present agreed that this
work should be documented as a Charter milestone. The nfsv4 Charter has
yet to reflect this change.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 14:00:28 -0800

Thanks for the update, Chuck.

For the milestone addition, do you have expected dates for IESG review that
can used for that entry?

Spencer

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 19:45:51 -0500

> On Nov 17, 2019, at 5:00 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> For the milestone addition, do you have expected dates for IESG review that can used for that entry?

How do people feel about June 2020?

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:58:23 -0800

I have added a milestone for June 2020 and it is awaiting AD (Magnus)
review/approval.

Spencer

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 20:08:50 -0500

> On Nov 17, 2019, at 7:59 PM, spencer shepler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I have added a milestone for June 2020 and it is awaiting AD (Magnus) review/approval.

Thanks, Spencer!

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 01:26:36 -0500

> How do people feel about June 2020?

It is certainly doable.

On the other hand, I find it distressing that people have come to treat
delays of the order that we have seen with cm-private-data (six months from
completion of WGLC) as expected.

Given that Magnus has raised the possibility of the working group's demise,
I feel the need to "rage against the dying of the light".

>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 23:17:29 -0800

<with my working group co-chair hat OFF>

As to the milestone date, I asked the author for a date - one was
provided.  It doesn't need to be then - could be much earlier.  What it
takes to move a document to the point of WGLC is effort by the authors to
shepherd it through the reviews necessary.  Calling for conference calls,
making the updates, working with individuals for their time for feedback.
time to update the document, etc, etc.  We all have work projects that move
much more quickly and we know how to make that happen - it can happen in
the context of the IETF but it takes time and effort.

You have Magnus' attention now.  So if the WG chairs become a burden in the
future with respect to timely response - he will correct it.

So... want an earlier date? Ask for the milestone to be set to that earlier
date and execute.

If June 2020 is reasonable given the scope of the document, time the author
has to commit or other factors outside of the WG chairs past behavior, then
that is fine as well but don't wave your hands in the air and lament the
past.

Spencer

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:26 PM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Given that Magnus has raised the possibility of the working group's
> demise, I feel the need to "rage against the dying of the light".
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 03:18:30 -0500

> <with my working group co-chair hat OFF>

I don't believe that for a minute

> shepherd it through the reviews necessary.
>

Note this document has *already* reached the point of WGLC. If it hadn't, a
six-month delay would not be troubling

Calling for conference calls, making the updates, working with individuals
> for their time for feedback. time to update the document, etc, etc.  We all
> have work projects that move much more quickly and we know how to make that
> happen - it can happen in the context of the IETF but it takes time and
> effort.
>

  Chuck has put in the necessary effort and I expect him to do so in the
future.

> You have Magnus' attention now.  So if the WG chairs become a burden in
> the future with respect to timely response - he will correct it.
>

I think of the timely response problem as an ongoing one that Magnus needs
to address.

> So... want an earlier date? Ask for the milestone to be set to that
> earlier date and execute.
>

I want to be clear that I am not faulting Chuck's choice.  In fact, knowing
the history and the fact that nothing has been done to address the
underlying issues, I might have made a similar choice, albeit with gritted
teeth.

> If June 2020 is reasonable given the scope of the document, time the
> author has to commit or other factors outside of the WG chairs past
> behavior,
>

If the shepherding crisis never happened, I would have chosen March 2020.

then that is fine as well but don't wave your hands in the air and lament
> the past.

I think we need to seriously address the past including a believable
explanation for the delay with cm-private-data and an apology to Chuck.