Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-11
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -10)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-28 for -10)
Unknown
- 3.4.5: Can a requester DoS a responder by asking the latter to read giga- or tera-bytes? And the same question the other way about for 3.4.6. - 4.4.1: not having access to memory allocated for "cancelled RPCs" also seems like a potential DoS that ought be noted. Is it? - General: I was surprised see no mention of DoS. Is that covered in some reference? Even if so, I'd have expected some discussion of DoS attacks and mitigations. - 8.2.1: "Protection below the RDMA layer is a more appropriate security mechanism for RDMA transports in performance-sensitive deployments." I think that's a bit over-stated. A deployment could be performance-sensitive but yet prioritise application layer crypto for various reasons. As you're really just talking about trade-offs, and I think that's sufficiently explained already, I figure you could omit that sentence.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown