Telechat Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-14
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-14-secdir-telechat-perlman-2015-12-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-01-05
Requested 2015-12-10
Authors Andy Adamson, Nicolás Williams
Draft last updated 2015-12-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Radia Perlman 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-14-secdir-telechat-perlman-2015-12-17
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 17)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-12-17

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-14-secdir-telechat-perlman-2015-12-17

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Note I'm reviewing the version 14 (although it was version 13 in the assignments list).

The document specifies where to carry Mandatory Access Control information in the protocol. It does not specify the Mandatory Access Control information itself… that is inherited from another spec.

The language in places is a bit foreign to me, perhaps because I don't "speak" GSS-API or mandatory access control.  So, for instance, in the sentence

    "Existing GSS-API mechanisms are insufficient for communicating

 certain aspects of authority               to a server"

I gather from context that this is authorization information.  I'd have said "...insufficient for communicating certain authorization information".  If "aspects of authority" means something else then perhaps "aspects of authority" should be defined here, even if defined elsewhere. If indeed this is common terminology then OK.

There's a typo in section 2.5  "with an acccept stat of PROC_UNAVAIL"  (extra "c" in accept)

Radia