> On May 27, 2020, at 11:05 PM, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chuck Lever <[email protected]> writes:
>> I'm not comfortable citing an NFSv4 document to define a term used in
>> a document that discusses a generic RPC transport. To me that feels an
>> awful lot like a layering violation.
>
> If doing that would be a layering violation, then this passage is also a
> layering violation:
>
> To protect backchannel operations, an RPC server uses the
> existing TLS session on that connection to send backchannel
> operations. The server does not attempt to establish a TLS session
> on a TCP connection for backchannel operation.
Yes, it is a layering violation. That's why I proposed replacing the
use of the term "backchannel" with the more correct "reverse-direction
operation", in addition to adding a citation of RFC 8167.
--
Chuck Lever
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
