draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-03.txt 
NFSv4 D. Quigley NFSv4 D. Quigley
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lu Intended status: Standards Track J. Lu
Expires: August 3, 2015 Oracle Expires: September 27, 2015 Oracle
T. Haynes T. Haynes
Primary Data Primary Data
January 30, 2015 March 26, 2015
Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label Registry Specification for Mandatory Access Control (MAC) Security Label
Formats Formats
draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02.txt draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
In the past Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very In the past Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have used very
rigid policies which were implemented in particular protocols and rigid policies which were implemented in particular protocols and
platforms. As MAC systems became more widely deployed, additional platforms. As MAC systems became more widely deployed, additional
flexibility in mechanism and policy will be required. While flexibility in mechanism and policy will be required. While
traditional trusted systems implemented Multi-Level Security (MLS) traditional trusted systems implemented Multi-Level Security (MLS)
and integrity models, modern systems have expanded to include and integrity models, modern systems have expanded to include
technologies such as type enforcement. Due to the wide range of technologies such as type enforcement. Due to the wide range of
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Exisiting Label Format Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Exisiting Label Format Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Security Option (IPSO), Basic Security Option (BSO) . 4 3.1. IP Security Option (IPSO), Basic Security Option (BSO) . 4
3.2. Commercial IP Security Option (CIPSO) . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Commercial IP Security Option (CIPSO) . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO) 4 3.3. Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO) 5
3.4. Flux Advanced Security Kernel (FLASK) . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Flux Advanced Security Kernel (FLASK) . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Adding a New Entry to the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Adding a New Entry to the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Obsoleting a Label Format Specifier . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Obsoleting a Label Format Specifier . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Modifying an Existing Entry in the Registry . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
With the acceptance of security labels in several mainstream With the acceptance of security labels in several mainstream
operating systems the need to communicate labels between these operating systems the need to communicate labels between these
systems becomes more important. In a typical client and server systems becomes more important. In a typical client and server
scenario, the client request to the server acts as a subject trying scenario, the client request to the server acts as a subject trying
to access an object on the server [RFC7204]. Unfortunately these to access an object on the server [RFC7204]. Unfortunately these
systems are diverse enough that attempts at establishing one common systems are diverse enough that attempts at establishing one common
label format have been unsucessful. The reason for this is that label format have been unsucessful. The reason for this is that
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
Policy administration within an organization is a difficult problem. Policy administration within an organization is a difficult problem.
This should not be made even more difficult by having to request This should not be made even more difficult by having to request
permission from external entities when crafting new policy or just permission from external entities when crafting new policy or just
making department specific modifications to existing policies. The making department specific modifications to existing policies. The
policy authority field would allow an label format specification to policy authority field would allow an label format specification to
specify a scheme for policy administration without forcing it on all specify a scheme for policy administration without forcing it on all
users of security labels. However by agreeing to implement a users of security labels. However by agreeing to implement a
particular label format specification, the protocol agrees to that particular label format specification, the protocol agrees to that
policy administration mechanism when processing labels of that type. policy administration mechanism when processing labels of that type.
This document presents a registry of label format specifications to
allow multiple MAC mechanisms and label formats to co-exist in a
network. While the initial use of this registry is for the Network
File System (NFS) protocol, it might also be referenced and used by
other IETF protocols in future.
2. Definitions 2. Definitions
Label Format Specifier: an identifier used by the client to Label Format Specifier: an identifier used by the client to
establish the syntactic format of the security label and the establish the syntactic format of the security label and the
semantic meaning of its components. semantic meaning of its components.
Label Format Specification: is a reference to a stable, public Label Format Specification: is a reference to a stable, public
document that specifies the label format. document that specifies the label format.
Multi-Level Security (MLS): a traditional model where subjects are Multi-Level Security (MLS): a traditional model where subjects are
skipping to change at page 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 28
architecture of FLASK to: architecture of FLASK to:
1. describe the interactions between a subsystem which enforces 1. describe the interactions between a subsystem which enforces
security policy decisions and a subsystem which makes those security policy decisions and a subsystem which makes those
decisions decisions
2. the requirements on the components within each subsystem. 2. the requirements on the components within each subsystem.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document defines a mechanism to associate LFS identifier with a This document defines a mechanism to associate the Label Format
document outlining the syntax and format of a label. There is no Specifier identifier with a document outlining the syntax and format
security consideration in such an association. The label of a label. There is no security consideration in such an
specification documents referenced by each registration entry should association. The label specification documents referenced by each
state security considerations for the label mechanism it specifies. registration entry should state security considerations for the label
mechanism it specifies.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding creation of a new registry in accordance Authority (IANA) regarding creation of a new registry in accordance
with [RFC5226]. with [RFC5226].
This submission requests the creation of a new registry called "NFS This submission requests the creation of a new registry called
Security Label Format Selection Registry". The new registry has the "Security Label Format Selection Registry". The new registry has the
following fields: following fields:
Label Format Specifier: An integer number that maps to a particular Label Format Specifier: An integer number that maps to a particular
label format, e.g., the CALIPSO label format defined by [RFC5570]. label format, e.g., the CALIPSO label format defined by [RFC5570].
The name space of this identifier has the range of 0..65,535. The name space of this identifier has the range of 0..65,535.
Label Description: A human readable ASCII text string that describes Label Description: A human readable ASCII ([RFC20]) text string that
the label format, e.g., "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security describes the label format, e.g., "Common Architecture Label IPv6
Option (CALIPSO)". The length of this field is limited to 128 Security Option (CALIPSO)". The length of this field is limited
bytes. to 128 bytes.
Status: A short ASCII text string indicating the status of an entry Status: A short ASCII text string indicating the status of an entry
in the registry. The status field for most entries should have in the registry. The status field for most entries should have
the value "active". In the case that a label format selection the value "active". In the case that a label format selection
entry is obsolete, the status field of the obsoleted entry should entry is obsolete, the status field of the obsoleted entry should
be "obsoleted by entry NNN". be "obsoleted by entry NNN".
Label Format Specification: A reference to a stable, public document Label Format Specification: A reference to a stable, public document
that specifies the label format, e.g., an URL to [RFC5570]. that specifies the label format, e.g., an URL to [RFC5570].
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
The initial assignments of the registry are as follows: The initial assignments of the registry are as follows:
+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+ +---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+
| Label Format | Description | Status | Reference | | Label Format | Description | Status | Reference |
| Specifier | | | | | Specifier | | | |
+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+ +---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | - | - | | 0 | Reserved | - | - |
| 1 - 127 | Private Use | - | - | | 1 - 127 | Private Use | - | - |
| 128 - 255 | Experimental Use | - | - | | 128 - 255 | Experimental Use | - | - |
| 256 | CIPSO (tag type #1) | active | [[CIPSO] URL] | | 256 | CIPSO (tag type #1) | active | [[FIPS-188] URL] |
| 257 | CALIPSO ([RFC5570]) | active | [[RFC5570] URL] | | 257 | CALIPSO ([RFC5570]) | active | [[RFC5570] URL] |
| 258 | FLASK Security | active | [[FLASK99] URL] | | 258 | FLASK Security | active | [[FLASK99] URL] |
| | Context | | | | | Context | | |
| 259 | IPSO | active | [[RFC1108] URL] | | 259 | IPSO | active | [[RFC1108] URL] |
| 260 - 65535 | Unassigned | - | - | | 260 - 65535 | Reserved for IANA | - | - |
| | Assignment | | |
+---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+ +---------------+---------------------+--------+--------------------+
Label Format Specifier Ranges Label Format Specifier Ranges
Table 1 Table 1
5.2. Adding a New Entry to the Registry 5.2. Adding a New Entry to the Registry
A label format specification document is required to add a new entry A label format specification document is required to add a new entry
to this registry. If the label format document is inside the RFC to this registry. If the label format document is inside the RFC
skipping to change at page 7, line 12 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
should be explicit in which old label selector assignment it should be explicit in which old label selector assignment it
obsoletes. Below is an example of obsoleted entry in the registry: obsoletes. Below is an example of obsoleted entry in the registry:
+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+ +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Label Format | Description | Status | Reference | | Label Format | Description | Status | Reference |
| Specifier | | | | | Specifier | | | |
+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+ +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | - | - | | 0 | Reserved | - | - |
| 1 - 127 | Private Use | - | - | | 1 - 127 | Private Use | - | - |
| 128 - 255 | Experimental Use | - | - | | 128 - 255 | Experimental Use | - | - |
| 256 | CIPSO (tag type | active | [[CIPSO] URL] | | 256 | CIPSO (tag type | active | [[FIPS-188] URL] |
| | #1) | | | | | #1) | | |
| 257 | CALIPSO | active | [[RFC5570] URL] | | 257 | CALIPSO | active | [[RFC5570] URL] |
| | ([RFC5570]) | | | | | ([RFC5570]) | | |
| 258 | FLASK Security | obsoleted | [[FLASK99] URL] | | 258 | FLASK Security | obsoleted | [[FLASK99] URL] |
| | Context | by 263 | | | | Context | by 263 | |
| ... | | | | | ... | | | |
| 263 | FLASK Security | active | [new spec URL] | | 263 | FLASK Security | active | [new spec URL] |
| | Context (v2) | | | | | Context (v2) | | |
| 264 - 65535 | Unassigned | - | - | | 264 - 65535 | Reserved for IANA | - | - |
| | Assignment | | |
+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+ +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------------+
Example Label Format Specifier Updated Ranges Example Label Format Specifier Updated Ranges
Table 2 Table 2
5.4. Modifying an Existing Entry in the Registry
A request to modify either the Description or the published label
format specification will also require the Specification Required
IANA policy to be applied. The Designated Expert reviewer will need
to determine if the published label format specification either
obsoletes the Label Format Specifier - follow the process in
Section 5.3
updates the label syntax and/or model - approve the change.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC20] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
October 1969.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[BL73] Bell, D. and L. LaPadula, "Secure Computer Systems: [BL73] Bell, D. and L. LaPadula, "Secure Computer Systems:
Mathematical Foundations and Model", Technical Report Mathematical Foundations and Model", Technical Report
M74-244, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, May 1973. M74-244, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, May 1973.
[CIPSO] IETF CIPSO Working Group, "Commercial IP Security Option [CIPSO] IETF CIPSO Working Group, "Commercial IP Security Option
(CIPSO 2.2)", draft-ietf-cipso-ipsecurity-01 (expired), (CIPSO 2.2)", draft-ietf-cipso-ipsecurity-01 (expired),
July 1992. July 1992.
[FIPS-188] [FIPS-188]
US National Institute of Standards and Technology, US National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Standard Security Labels for Information Transfer", "Standard Security Labels for Information Transfer",
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 188, Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 188,
September 1994. September 1994, <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/
fips188/fips188.pdf>.
[FLASK99] Spencer, R., Smalley, S., Loscocco, P., Hibler, M., [FLASK99] Spencer, R., Smalley, S., Loscocco, P., Hibler, M.,
Andersen, D., and J. Lepreau, "The Flask Security Andersen, D., and J. Lepreau, "The Flask Security
Architecture: System Support for Diverse Security Architecture: System Support for Diverse Security
Policies", In Proceedings of the Eighth USENIX Security Policies", In Proceedings of the Eighth USENIX Security
Symposium, pages 123-139, August 1999. Symposium, pages 123-139, August 1999.
[FLASK99b] [FLASK99b]
Secure Computing Corporation, "Assurance in the Fluke Secure Computing Corporation, "Assurance in the Fluke
Microkernel Formal Security Policy Model", Document Microkernel Formal Security Policy Model", Document
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 18
[RFC7204] Haynes, T., "Requirements for Labeled NFS", RFC 7204, [RFC7204] Haynes, T., "Requirements for Labeled NFS", RFC 7204,
April 2014. April 2014.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Ran Atkinson contributed the text for IPSO. Ran Atkinson contributed the text for IPSO.
Dave Noveck helped detangle the terminology. Dave Noveck helped detangle the terminology.
Alexey Melnikov caught that a process was needed for modifying
entries in the registry.
Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publishing this [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publishing this
document as an RFC] document as an RFC]
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
David P. Quigley David P. Quigley
Email: dpquigl@davequigley.com Email: dpquigl@davequigley.com
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 58 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/