RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
Comment (2008-12-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Christian Vogt's review: Document..........: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-10 Reviewer..........: Christian Vogt Review date.......: December 11, 2008 IESG Telechat date: December 11, 2008 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Document draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-10 is an update of the "Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2", RFC 1831. It seeks to promote the RPC protocol to draft standard. The document is overall in good quality. However, one aspect where I found the document to be insufficient is in the specification of security methods. The documents does list possible security methods, but it neither specifies them, nor does it state a mandatory-to-support method other than null-authentication. I am aware that the predecessor document, RFC 1831 also did not attend to security methods any more carefully. But the security-related requirements for IETF documents have become stricter since the publication of the predecessor document in 1995, which implies that this document would need to pay more attention to security-related aspects. Suggestion: Could the list of possible security methods (alias "security flavors") be limited to those for which there are clear protocol specifications? E.g., one of the possible methods, AUTH_DH, currently refers to an academic publication rather than a protocol specification. That's insufficient. And could one of the non-null security methods be made mandatory?
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection
Editorial nit: Section 8.3, the chart isn't actually "in groups of hexadecimal 20000000" any more (it was in 1831).
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
(David Ward) No Objection
Magnus Westerlund No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) Abstain
Comment (2008-12-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I support the various DISCUSS positions