Re: Security Use Requirements

[David Robinson <david.robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>]

julian_satran@il.ibm.com wrote:
> BTW this is also the way security is implemented in all the
> widespread protocols today - HTTP has a TLS upgrade command, Telnet and FTP
> have security kickoffs etc.. NFS has nothing more either. None of them
> specifies anything beyond that as the security component selected is the
> one that is dictating what is the minimum and what the module is offering.

Having gone through the history of NFS standing for No F****** Security
has rightfully gone through the exercise of creating a robust and
flexible security infrastructure based on GSSAPI.  It also mandates to
implement two different mechanisms that covers both Enterprise size
security concerns (Kerberos V5) and Internet size security (Lipkey).

As I espoused back in Pittsburgh, the IPS group would be very short
sighted
not to make authentication, integrity, and privacy manditory to
implement.
Even if the IESG let less through, it would result in IPS effectively
having no security and condemming it to only the system area network
market.  I will cite past non-standard attempts to secure NFS as
examples.

Yes, there are costs and performance implications, but volume and
technology
will help over the life of the protocol and a customer can always turn
security off if they feel they are safe enough.

	-David