Re: Comments on draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement-07

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 10:12 AM Chuck Lever <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 7, 2019, at 6:13 PM, David Noveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>

> It appears that draft-ietf-nfsv4-integrity-measurement can't move
> forward without some description of the IMA metadata format.
>

It is my understanding that you already plan to do that in -08.


> My preference would be that the Linux community is responsible for
> the process and document(s) that describe their own format.


That's very sensible but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Failing
> that, a description can be added to integrity-measurement, as I
> recently proposed.
>

Understood.


> To make an IANA registry a sensible thing to do, at least one more
> independent integrity metadata format will have to be identified.
>

I think one has already been identified.  To make this scheme work, there
will need to have a common metadata format implemented.

Once it is implemented, it will need to be specified, leaving you with
following tasks:

   - Identifying a victim to provide it.
   - Figuring out when/where it will be provided.

The virtue of the IANA registry is that it gives you the ability to defer
these tasks.


> I will see what can be done.
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4