> On May 27, 2020, at 11:05 PM, Dale R. Worley <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
