Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-09.txt

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:08:05 -0400

Hi Martin, Ben -

> On Sep 18, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Chuck Lever <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello-
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: [email-masked]
>> Subject: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-09.txt
>> Date: September 18, 2020 at 8:22:49 AM EDT
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>> 
>> 
>> 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-09.txt
>> 	Pages           : 26
>> 	Date            : 2020-09-18
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>  This document describes a mechanism that, through the use of
>>  opportunistic Transport Layer Security (TLS), enables encryption of
>>  Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transactions while they are in-transit.
>>  The proposed mechanism interoperates with ONC RPC implementations
>>  that do not support it.  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 is also a HTML versions available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-09.html
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-09
>> 
>> 
>> 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/
> 
> This revision contains proposed updates to address the many DISCUSS
> and COMMENT ballot positions offered during IESG review. Magnus
> suggested that I provide a fresh revision as the easiest vehicle
> to explore these updates, and we can go forward from here with any
> additional changes needed.

I'm wondering if you've had a chance to look over these changes.

--
Chuck Lever