Requirements for Federated File Systems
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-reqts-06

[Ballot discuss]
I did not see an answer to the question raised by Pete McCann in his
  Gen-ART review.  I think a response to this Last Call comment is needed.
  The review canbe found at:
  http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-reqts-03-mccann.txt

[Ballot comment]
A6:  In a federated system, we assume that an FSN MUST express, or
        can be used to discover, the following two pieces of
        information:

[...]

        As an example, an FSN could be represented by a URL of the form
        nsdb.example.com/UUID

Pedantic: this is actually not a proper URL.

        where nsdb.example.com is the FQDN of the
        server hosting the NSDB node and UUID is the string
        representation of the identifier.


  R9:  The projected namespace (and the objects named by the
        namespace) MUST be accessible to clients via at least one
        standard filesystem access protocol.

What do you call a "standard filesystem access protocol"?

        a.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via versions
            of the CIFS (SMB) protocol.

Is there a reference for CIFS that can be used?
(There was actually one earlier reference to CIFS in the document.)

        b.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv4
            protocol as described in [RFC3530].

        c.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv3
            protocol as described in [RFC1813].

        d.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv2
            protocol as described in [RFC1094].

7.  Security Considerations

  A federation could contain multiple Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
  trust anchors [RFC5280].  The federation protocols SHOULD define a
  mechanism for managing a fileserver's NSDB trust anchors
  [TA-MGMT-REQS].  A general purpose trust anchor management protocol
  [TAMP] would be appropriate, though it might be desirable for the
  federation protocols to facilitate trust anchor management by, for
  example, using trust anchor interchange formats [TA-FORMAT].

It would be more logical to have these requirements elsewhere in the document, if they are indeed requirements.


I think the following references are Informative:

  [RFC2203]  Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
              Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.

  [RFC2743]  Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
              Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.

  [RFC4513]  Harrison, R., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms",
              RFC 4513, June 2006.

  [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

[Ballot comment]
A6:  In a federated system, we assume that an FSN MUST express, or
        can be used to discover, the following two pieces of
        information:

[...]

        As an example, an FSN could be represented by a URL of the form
        nsdb.example.com/UUID

Pedantic: this is actually not a proper URL.

        where nsdb.example.com is the FQDN of the
        server hosting the NSDB node and UUID is the string
        representation of the identifier.


  R9:  The projected namespace (and the objects named by the
        namespace) MUST be accessible to clients via at least one
        standard filesystem access protocol.

What do you call a "standard filesystem access protocol"?

        a.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via versions
            of the CIFS (SMB) protocol.

Is there a reference for CIFS that can be used?
(There was actually one earlier reference to CIFS in the document.)

        b.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv4
            protocol as described in [RFC3530].

        c.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv3
            protocol as described in [RFC1813].

        d.  The namespace SHOULD be accessible to clients via the NFSv2
            protocol as described in [RFC1094].

7.  Security Considerations

  A federation could contain multiple Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
  trust anchors [RFC5280].  The federation protocols SHOULD define a
  mechanism for managing a fileserver's NSDB trust anchors
  [TA-MGMT-REQS].  A general purpose trust anchor management protocol
  [TAMP] would be appropriate, though it might be desirable for the
  federation protocols to facilitate trust anchor management by, for
  example, using trust anchor interchange formats [TA-FORMAT].

It would be more logical to have these requirements elsewhere in the document, if they are indeed requirements.

1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document sheperd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes. Reviews (within a design group and the larger working
group) have been completed. A working group last call was
completed with show of support and only minor issues. The
document has been adequately reviewed.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No major concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns.

(1.e) 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?

Strong concensus is held within the working group.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks
are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document has passed the nits review.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references have been split. One normative reference lacks
full RFC publication [NFSv4.1]. This document has cleared all
publication hurdles and awaits final editor review/publication.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA section exists and no action are required of IANA.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) 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 document defines the functional requirements for a
federated file system and defines the related set of terms.
Even though this is a work product of the NFS version 4
working group, the requirements are defined in terms or for
utility with more than just the NFS version 4 protocol.

Working Group Summary

The definition of these requirements have received wide review
within the NFSv4 working group and have contributions from
those with implementation experience; this experience and
review have resulted in a well received document.


Document Quality

The overall document quality is high for this requirements
document. Given that it is intended as an Information RFC,
there is no direct implementation in support of the document
but it has received quality review and input.