draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-02.txt 
Network Working Group Robert Thurlow Network Working Group Robert Thurlow
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-01.txt Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-02.txt
RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC2026. of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. This Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. This
document will expire in November, 2003. Distribution of this draft is document will expire in November, 2003. Distribution of this draft is
unlimited. unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the ONC (Open Network Computing) Remote This document describes the ONC (Open Network Computing) Remote
Procedure Call (ONC RPC Version 2) protocol as it is currently Procedure Call (ONC RPC Version 2) protocol as it is currently
deployed and accepted. It is meant to supersede [RFC1831]. deployed and accepted. It is meant to supersede [RFC1831].
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The RPC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The RPC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Transports and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Transports and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Binding and Rendezvous Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Binding and Rendezvous Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. RPC Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. RPC Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
11.3. Syntax Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.3. Syntax Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. Appendix A: System Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14. Appendix A: System Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. Appendix B: Requesting RPC program or authentication 15. Appendix B: Requesting RPC program or authentication
numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
16. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 16. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 17. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
18. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 18. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies version two of the message protocol used in This document specifies version two of the message protocol used in
ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified
with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC1832]. This with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC1832]. This
document assumes that the reader is familiar with XDR. It does not document assumes that the reader is familiar with XDR. It does not
attempt to justify remote procedure calls systems or describe their attempt to justify remote procedure calls systems or describe their
use. The paper by Birrell and Nelson [XRPC] is recommended as an use. The paper by Birrell and Nelson [XRPC] is recommended as an
excellent background for the remote procedure call concept. excellent background for the remote procedure call concept.
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
3. The RPC Model 3. The RPC Model
The ONC RPC protocol is based on the remote procedure call model, The ONC RPC protocol is based on the remote procedure call model,
which is similar to the local procedure call model. In the local which is similar to the local procedure call model. In the local
case, the caller places arguments to a procedure in some well- case, the caller places arguments to a procedure in some well-
specified location (such as a register window). It then transfers specified location (such as a register window). It then transfers
control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At that control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At that
point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well- point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well-
specified location, and the caller continues execution. specified location, and the caller continues execution.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of control The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of control
logically winds through two processes: the caller's process, and a logically winds through two processes: the caller's process, and a
server's process. The caller process first sends a call message to server's process. The caller process first sends a call message to
the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call
message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply message message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply message
includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message is includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message is
received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and caller's received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and caller's
execution is resumed. execution is resumed.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
o Authentication: since remote procedure calls can be transported o Authentication: since remote procedure calls can be transported
over unsecured networks, authentication may be necessary. over unsecured networks, authentication may be necessary.
Authentication prevents one entity from masquerading as some Authentication prevents one entity from masquerading as some
other entity. other entity.
The conclusion is that even though there are tools to automatically The conclusion is that even though there are tools to automatically
generate client and server libraries for a given service, protocols generate client and server libraries for a given service, protocols
must still be designed carefully. must still be designed carefully.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
4. Transports and Semantics 4. Transports and Semantics
The RPC protocol can be implemented on several different transport The RPC protocol can be implemented on several different transport
protocols. The RPC protocol does not care how a message is passed protocols. The RPC protocol does not care how a message is passed
from one process to another, but only with specification and from one process to another, but only with specification and
interpretation of messages. However, the application may wish to interpretation of messages. However, the application may wish to
obtain information about (and perhaps control over) the transport obtain information about (and perhaps control over) the transport
layer through an interface not specified in this document. For layer through an interface not specified in this document. For
example, the transport protocol may impose a restriction on the example, the transport protocol may impose a restriction on the
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting a may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting a
call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing a call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing a
call and not execute calls with the same ID in order to achieve some call and not execute calls with the same ID in order to achieve some
degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not allowed degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not allowed
to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality. to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality.
On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP, the On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP, the
application can infer from a reply message that the procedure was application can infer from a reply message that the procedure was
executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it cannot executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it cannot
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even if assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even if
a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application still a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application still
needs time-outs and reconnection to handle server crashes. needs time-outs and reconnection to handle server crashes.
There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram- or There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram- or
connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply protocol connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply protocol
such as [VMTP] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC uses such as [VMTP] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC
both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 10 (Record Marking currently uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 10
Standard) describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC to utilize a (Record Marking Standard) describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC
connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as TCP. to utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as
TCP. The mechanism by which future transports having different
structural characteristics should be used to transfer ONC RPC
messages should be specified by means of a standards-track RFC, once
such additional transports are defined.
5. Binding and Rendezvous Independence 5. Binding and Rendezvous Independence
The act of binding a particular client to a particular service and The act of binding a particular client to a particular service and
transport parameters is NOT part of this RPC protocol specification. transport parameters is NOT part of this RPC protocol specification.
This important and necessary function is left up to some higher-level This important and necessary function is left up to some higher-level
software. software.
Implementors could think of the RPC protocol as the jump-subroutine Implementors could think of the RPC protocol as the jump-subroutine
instruction ("JSR") of a network; the loader (binder) makes JSR instruction ("JSR") of a network; the loader (binder) makes JSR
skipping to change at page 6, line 52 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
The RPC protocol must provide for the following: The RPC protocol must provide for the following:
o Unique specification of a procedure to be called. o Unique specification of a procedure to be called.
o Provisions for matching response messages to request messages. o Provisions for matching response messages to request messages.
o Provisions for authenticating the caller to service and vice- o Provisions for authenticating the caller to service and vice-
versa. versa.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
Besides these requirements, features that detect the following are Besides these requirements, features that detect the following are
worth supporting because of protocol roll-over errors, implementation worth supporting because of protocol roll-over errors, implementation
bugs, user error, and network administration: bugs, user error, and network administration:
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003
o RPC protocol mismatches. o RPC protocol mismatches.
o Remote program protocol version mismatches. o Remote program protocol version mismatches.
o Protocol errors (such as misspecification of a procedure's o Protocol errors (such as misspecification of a procedure's
parameters). parameters).
o Reasons why remote authentication failed. o Reasons why remote authentication failed.
o Any other reasons why the desired procedure was not called. o Any other reasons why the desired procedure was not called.
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
The reply message to a request message has enough information to The reply message to a request message has enough information to
distinguish the following error conditions: distinguish the following error conditions:
o The remote implementation of RPC does not support protocol o The remote implementation of RPC does not support protocol
version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers
are returned. are returned.
o The remote program is not available on the remote system. o The remote program is not available on the remote system.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
o The remote program does not support the requested version o The remote program does not support the requested version
number. The lowest and highest supported remote program version number. The lowest and highest supported remote program version
numbers are returned. numbers are returned.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003
o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually
a client side protocol or programming error.) a client side protocol or programming error.)
o The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be garbage from o The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be garbage from
the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually caused by a the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually caused by a
disagreement about the protocol between client and service.) disagreement about the protocol between client and service.)
7.2. Authentication 7.2. Authentication
Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
(uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation. (uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation.
The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within the The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within the
authentication fields is specified by individual, independent authentication fields is specified by individual, independent
authentication protocol specifications. (Section 9 defines the authentication protocol specifications. (Section 9 defines the
various authentication protocols.) various authentication protocols.)
If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply message If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply message
contains information stating why they were rejected. contains information stating why they were rejected.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
7.3. Program Number Assignment 7.3. Program Number Assignment
Program numbers are given out in groups of hexadecimal 20000000 Program numbers are given out in groups of hexadecimal 20000000
(decimal 536870912) according to the following chart: (decimal 536870912) according to the following chart:
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 - 0x1fffffff To be assigned by IANA 1 - 0x1fffffff To be assigned by IANA
0x20000000 - 0x3fffffff Defined by local administrator 0x20000000 - 0x3fffffff Defined by local administrator
(some blocks assigned here) (some blocks assigned here)
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
batch calls is usually terminated by a legitimate remote procedure batch calls is usually terminated by a legitimate remote procedure
call operation in order to flush the pipeline and get positive call operation in order to flush the pipeline and get positive
acknowledgement. acknowledgement.
7.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls 7.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls
In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to the In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to the
network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use of network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use of
packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol. Servers packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol. Servers
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the call that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the call
is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors, but is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors, but
this varies with the application. this varies with the application.
The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting - an RPC The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting - an RPC
request can be sent to a multicast address. request can be sent to a multicast address.
8. The RPC Message Protocol 8. The RPC Message Protocol
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* e.g. memory allocation failure */ SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* e.g. memory allocation failure */
}; };
Reasons why a call message was rejected: Reasons why a call message was rejected:
enum reject_stat { enum reject_stat {
RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */ RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */
AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */ AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */
}; };
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
Why authentication failed: Why authentication failed:
enum auth_stat { enum auth_stat {
AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */ AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */
/* /*
* failed at remote end * failed at remote end
*/ */
AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */ AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */
AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */ AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
AUTH_TKT_FILE = 10, /* problem with ticket file */ AUTH_TKT_FILE = 10, /* problem with ticket file */
AUTH_DECODE = 11, /* can't decode authenticator */ AUTH_DECODE = 11, /* can't decode authenticator */
AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */ AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */
/* /*
* GSS related errors * GSS related errors
*/ */
RPCSEC_GSS_NOCRED = 13, /* no credentials for user */ RPCSEC_GSS_NOCRED = 13, /* no credentials for user */
RPCSEC_GSS_FAILED = 14 /* GSS failure, creds deleted */ RPCSEC_GSS_FAILED = 14 /* GSS failure, creds deleted */
}; };
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
The RPC message: The RPC message:
All messages start with a transaction identifier, xid, followed by a All messages start with a transaction identifier, xid, followed by a
two-armed discriminated union. The union's discriminant is a two-armed discriminated union. The union's discriminant is a
msg_type which switches to one of the two types of the message. The msg_type which switches to one of the two types of the message. The
xid of a REPLY message always matches that of the initiating CALL xid of a REPLY message always matches that of the initiating CALL
message. NB: The xid field is only used for clients matching reply message. NB: The xid field is only used for clients matching reply
messages with call messages or for servers detecting retransmissions; messages with call messages or for servers detecting retransmissions;
the service side cannot treat this id as any type of sequence number. the service side cannot treat this id as any type of sequence number.
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
struct call_body { struct call_body {
unsigned int rpcvers; /* must be equal to two (2) */ unsigned int rpcvers; /* must be equal to two (2) */
unsigned int prog; unsigned int prog;
unsigned int vers; unsigned int vers;
unsigned int proc; unsigned int proc;
opaque_auth cred; opaque_auth cred;
opaque_auth verf; opaque_auth verf;
/* procedure specific parameters start here */ /* procedure specific parameters start here */
}; };
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
Body of a reply to an RPC call: Body of a reply to an RPC call:
union reply_body switch (reply_stat stat) { union reply_body switch (reply_stat stat) {
case MSG_ACCEPTED: case MSG_ACCEPTED:
accepted_reply areply; accepted_reply areply;
case MSG_DENIED: case MSG_DENIED:
rejected_reply rreply; rejected_reply rreply;
} reply; } reply;
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
} mismatch_info; } mismatch_info;
default: default:
/* /*
* Void. Cases include PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, * Void. Cases include PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL,
* GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR. * GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR.
*/ */
void; void;
} reply_data; } reply_data;
}; };
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
Reply to an RPC call that was rejected by the server: Reply to an RPC call that was rejected by the server:
The call can be rejected for two reasons: either the server is not The call can be rejected for two reasons: either the server is not
running a compatible version of the RPC protocol (RPC_MISMATCH), or running a compatible version of the RPC protocol (RPC_MISMATCH), or
the server rejects the identity of the caller (AUTH_ERROR). In case the server rejects the identity of the caller (AUTH_ERROR). In case
of an RPC version mismatch, the server returns the lowest and highest of an RPC version mismatch, the server returns the lowest and highest
supported RPC version numbers. In case of invalid authentication, supported RPC version numbers. In case of invalid authentication,
failure status is returned. failure status is returned.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
In this document, two flavors of authentication are described. Of In this document, two flavors of authentication are described. Of
these, Null authentication (described in the next subsection) is these, Null authentication (described in the next subsection) is
mandatory - it must be available in all implementations. System mandatory - it must be available in all implementations. System
authentication (AUTH_SYS) is described in Appendix A. It is strongly authentication (AUTH_SYS) is described in Appendix A. It is strongly
recommended that implementors include AUTH_SYS in their recommended that implementors include AUTH_SYS in their
implementations to promote interoperability, since many applications implementations to promote interoperability, since many applications
make use of this flavor. See "Security Considerations" for make use of this flavor. See "Security Considerations" for
information about other, more secure, authentication flavors. information about other, more secure, authentication flavors.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
9.1. Null Authentication 9.1. Null Authentication
Often calls must be made where the client does not care about its Often calls must be made where the client does not care about its
identity or the server does not care who the client is. In this identity or the server does not care who the client is. In this
case, the flavor of the RPC message's credential, verifier, and reply case, the flavor of the RPC message's credential, verifier, and reply
verifier is "AUTH_NONE". Opaque data associated with "AUTH_NONE" is verifier is "AUTH_NONE". Opaque data associated with "AUTH_NONE" is
undefined. It is recommended that the length of the opaque data be undefined. It is recommended that the length of the opaque data be
zero. zero.
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program. Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program.
program PING_PROG { program PING_PROG {
/* /*
* Latest and greatest version * Latest and greatest version
*/ */
version PING_VERS_PINGBACK { version PING_VERS_PINGBACK {
void void
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
/* /*
* Ping the client, return the round-trip time * Ping the client, return the round-trip time
* (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the operation * (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the operation
* timed out. * timed out.
*/ */
int int
PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1; PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1;
} = 2; } = 2;
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
program-def: program-def:
"program" identifier "{" "program" identifier "{"
version-def version-def
version-def * version-def *
"}" "=" constant ";" "}" "=" constant ";"
version-def: version-def:
"version" identifier "{" "version" identifier "{"
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
procedure-def procedure-def
procedure-def * procedure-def *
"}" "=" constant ";" "}" "=" constant ";"
procedure-def: procedure-def:
type-specifier identifier "(" type-specifier type-specifier identifier "(" type-specifier
("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";" ("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";"
11.3. Syntax Notes 11.3. Syntax Notes
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
the lack of a verifier to permit the credential to be validated. Use the lack of a verifier to permit the credential to be validated. Use
of AUTH_SYS is not recommended for services which permit clients to of AUTH_SYS is not recommended for services which permit clients to
modify data. modify data.
[RFC2203] defines a new security flavor, RPCSEC_GSS, which permits [RFC2203] defines a new security flavor, RPCSEC_GSS, which permits
GSS-API [RFC2743] mechanisms to be used for securing RPC. All non- GSS-API [RFC2743] mechanisms to be used for securing RPC. All non-
trivial RPC programs developed in future should implement trivial RPC programs developed in future should implement
RPCSEC_GSS-based security appropriately. [RFC2623] describes how RPCSEC_GSS-based security appropriately. [RFC2623] describes how
this was done for a widely deployed RPC program. this was done for a widely deployed RPC program.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
14. Appendix A: System Authentication 14. Appendix A: System Authentication
The client may wish to identify itself, for example, as it is The client may wish to identify itself, for example, as it is
identified on a UNIX(tm) system. The flavor of the client credential identified on a UNIX(tm) system. The flavor of the client credential
is "AUTH_SYS". The opaque data constituting the credential encodes is "AUTH_SYS". The opaque data constituting the credential encodes
the following structure: the following structure:
struct authsys_parms { struct authsys_parms {
unsigned int stamp; unsigned int stamp;
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
It should be noted that use of this flavor of authentication does not It should be noted that use of this flavor of authentication does not
guarantee any security for the users or providers of a service, in guarantee any security for the users or providers of a service, in
itself. The authentication provided by this scheme can be considered itself. The authentication provided by this scheme can be considered
legitimate only when applications using this scheme and the network legitimate only when applications using this scheme and the network
can be secured externally, and privileged transport addresses are can be secured externally, and privileged transport addresses are
used for the communicating end-points (an example of this is the use used for the communicating end-points (an example of this is the use
of privileged TCP/UDP ports in Unix systems - note that not all of privileged TCP/UDP ports in Unix systems - note that not all
systems enforce privileged transport address mechanisms). systems enforce privileged transport address mechanisms).
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
15. Appendix B: Requesting RPC program or authentication numbers 15. Appendix B: Requesting RPC program or authentication numbers
RPC numbers which must be unique across all networks are assigned by RPC numbers which must be unique across all networks are assigned by
the Internet Assigned Number Authority. [RPCIANA] describes RPC the Internet Assigned Number Authority. [RPCIANA] describes RPC
program number and authentication flavor number assignment policy to program number and authentication flavor number assignment policy to
be implemented by IANA. To apply for a single number or a block of be implemented by IANA. To apply for a single number or a block of
numbers, electronic mail must be sent to IANA <iana@isi.edu> with the numbers, electronic mail must be sent to IANA <iana@isi.edu> with the
following information: following information:
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
required. required.
Specific numbers cannot be requested. Numbers are assigned on a Specific numbers cannot be requested. Numbers are assigned on a
First Come First Served basis. First Come First Served basis.
For all RPC authentication flavor numbers to used on the Internet, it For all RPC authentication flavor numbers to used on the Internet, it
is strongly advised that an informational or standards-track RFC be is strongly advised that an informational or standards-track RFC be
published describing the authentication mechanism behaviour and published describing the authentication mechanism behaviour and
parameters. parameters.
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
16. Normative References 16. Normative References
[RFC1832] [RFC1832]
Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", RFC Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", RFC
1832, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995. 1832, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995.
17. Informative References 17. Informative References
[XRPC] [XRPC]
skipping to change at page 21, line 5 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, USC/Information Sciences Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981. Institute, September 1981.
[RFC768] [RFC768]
Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, USC/Information Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, USC/Information
Sciences Institute, August 1980. Sciences Institute, August 1980.
[RFC1700] [RFC1700]
Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
[RFC1831] [RFC1831]
R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
Version 2", RFC1831, August 1995. Version 2", RFC1831, August 1995.
[KERB87] [KERB87]
Miller, S., Neuman, C., Schiller, J., and J. Saltzer, "Section Miller, S., Neuman, C., Schiller, J., and J. Saltzer, "Section
E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System", M.I.T. E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System", M.I.T.
skipping to change at page 21, line 29 skipping to change at page 21, line 29
Steiner, J., Neuman, C., and J. Schiller, "Kerberos: An Steiner, J., Neuman, C., and J. Schiller, "Kerberos: An
Authentication Service for Open Network Systems", pp. 191-202 in Authentication Service for Open Network Systems", pp. 191-202 in
Usenix Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, February 1988. Usenix Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, February 1988.
[RFC1510] [RFC1510]
Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service
(V5)", RFC 1510, Digital Equipment Corporation, USC/Information (V5)", RFC 1510, Digital Equipment Corporation, USC/Information
Sciences Institute, September 1993. Sciences Institute, September 1993.
[RPCIANA] [RPCIANA]
Thurlow, R., "RPC Numbering Authority Transfer to IANA", Standards R. Thurlow, "RPC Numbering Authority Transfer to IANA",
track draft, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-iana-01.txt,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-iana.txt May 2004
Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2003 Title Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 May 2004
18. Author's Address 18. Author's Address
Address comments related to this memorandum to: Address comments related to this memorandum to:
nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Robert Thurlow Robert Thurlow
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
500 Eldorado Boulevard, UBRM05-171 500 Eldorado Boulevard, UBRM05-171
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/