draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-13.txt   rfc5531.txt 
Network File System Version 4 Working Group R. Thurlow Network Working Group R. Thurlow
Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems Request for Comments: 5531 Sun Microsystems
Intended status: Draft Standard
Obsoletes: 1831
Expires: September 5, 2009 March 5, 2009
RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1831bis-13.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Category: Standards Track
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document will expire in July, 2009. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document.
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the ONC (Open Network Computing) Remote This document describes the Open Network Computing (ONC) Remote
Procedure Call (ONC RPC Version 2) protocol as it is currently Procedure Call (RPC) version 2 protocol as it is currently deployed
deployed and accepted. This document obsoletes [RFC1831]. and accepted. This document obsoletes RFC 1831.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Changes since RFC 1831 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Changes since RFC 1831 ..........................................3
4. The RPC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3. Terminology .....................................................3
5. Transports and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4. The RPC Model ...................................................4
6. Binding and Rendezvous Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5. Transports and Semantics ........................................5
7. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6. Binding and Rendezvous Independence .............................7
8. RPC Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7. Authentication ..................................................7
8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8. RPC Protocol Requirements .......................................7
8.2. Authentication, Integrity and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures ................................8
8.3. Program Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy .....................9
8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.3. Program Number Assignment .................................10
8.4.1. Batching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol ............................10
8.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.4.1. Batching ...........................................10
9. The RPC Message Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls ...................11
10. Authentication Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9. The RPC Message Protocol .......................................11
10.1. Null Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10. Authentication Protocols ......................................15
11. Record Marking Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10.1. Null Authentication ......................................15
12. The RPC Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11. Record Marking Standard .......................................16
12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language . . . . 1 12. The RPC Language ..............................................16
12.2. The RPC Language Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language .........17
12.3. Syntax Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12.2. The RPC Language Specification ...........................18
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12.3. Syntax Notes .............................................18
13.1. Numbering Requests to IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13. IANA Considerations ...........................................19
13.2. Protecting Past Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.1. Numbering Requests to IANA ...............................19
13.3. RPC Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.2. Protecting Past Assignments ..............................19
13.3.1. To be assigned by IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.3. RPC Number Assignment ....................................19
13.3.2. Defined by local administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.3.1. To be assigned by IANA ............................20
13.3.3. Transient block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator ....................20
13.3.4. Reserved block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.3.3. Transient Block ...................................20
13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.3.4. Reserved Block ....................................21
13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment . . . . . . . 1 13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks .............................21
13.4.1. Assignment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment ..............22
13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-flavors . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.4.1. Assignment Policy .................................22
13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . 1 13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors ...................23
13.5.1. Assignment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment ..................23
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.5.1. Assignment Policy .................................23
15. Appendix A: System Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14. Security Considerations .......................................24
16. Appendix B: Requesting RPC-related numbers from IANA . . . 1 Appendix A: System Authentication .................................25
17. Appendix C: Current number assignments . . . . . . . . . . 1 Appendix B: Requesting RPC-Related Numbers from IANA .............26
18. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Appendix C: Current Number Assignments ...........................27
19. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Normative References .............................................62
20. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Informative References ...........................................62
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies version two of the message protocol used in This document specifies version 2 of the message protocol used in ONC
ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified with
with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC4506]. This the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [RFC4506]. 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 call 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.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Changes since RFC 1831 2. Changes since RFC 1831
This document obsoletes RFC 1831 as the authoritative document This document obsoletes [RFC1831] as the authoritative document
describing RPC, without introducing any over-the-wire protocol describing RPC, without introducing any over-the-wire protocol
changes. The main changes from RFC 1831 are: changes. The main changes from RFC 1831 are:
o Addition of an Appendix which describes how an implementor can o Addition of an Appendix that describes how an implementor can
request new RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers request new RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers,
and authentication status numbers from IANA, rather than from and authentication status numbers from IANA, rather than from Sun
Sun Microsystems Microsystems
o Addition of an "IANA Considerations" section which describes o Addition of an "IANA Considerations" section that describes past
past number assignment policy and how IANA is intended to assign number assignment policy and how IANA is intended to assign them
them in the future in the future
o Clarification of the RPC Language Specification to match current o Clarification of the RPC Language Specification to match current
usage usage
o Enhancement of the "Security Considerations" section to reflect o Enhancement of the "Security Considerations" section to reflect
experience with strong security flavors experience with strong security flavors
o Specification of new authentication errors that are in common o Specification of new authentication errors that are in common use
use in modern RPC implementations in modern RPC implementations
o Updates for the latest IETF intellectual property statements o Updates for the latest IETF intellectual property statements
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
This document discusses clients, calls, servers, replies, services, This document discusses clients, calls, servers, replies, services,
programs, procedures, and versions. Each remote procedure call has programs, procedures, and versions. Each remote procedure call has
two sides: an active client side that makes the call to a server, two sides: an active client side that makes the call to a server
which sends back a reply. A network service is a collection of one side, which sends back a reply. A network service is a collection of
or more remote programs. A remote program implements one or more one or more remote programs. A remote program implements one or more
remote procedures; the procedures, their parameters, and results are remote procedures; the procedures, their parameters, and results are
documented in the specific program's protocol specification. A documented in the specific program's protocol specification. A
server may support more than one version of a remote program in order server may support more than one version of a remote program in order
to be compatible with changing protocols. to be compatible with changing protocols.
For example, a network file service may be composed of two programs. For example, a network file service may be composed of two programs.
One program may deal with high-level applications such as file system One program may deal with high-level applications such as file system
access control and locking. The other may deal with low-level file access control and locking. The other may deal with low-level file
input and output and have procedures like "read" and "write". A input and output and have procedures like "read" and "write". A
client of the network file service would call the procedures client of the network file service would call the procedures
associated with the two programs of the service on behalf of the associated with the two programs of the service on behalf of the
client. client.
The terms client and server only apply to a particular transaction; a The terms "client" and "server" only apply to a particular
particular hardware entity (host) or software entity (process or transaction; a particular hardware entity (host) or software entity
program) could operate in both roles at different times. For (process or program) could operate in both roles at different times.
example, a program that supplies remote execution service could also For example, a program that supplies remote execution service could
be a client of a network file service. also be a client of a network file service.
4. The RPC Model 4. 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.
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 first sends a call message to the
the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call 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 the
execution is resumed. caller's execution is resumed.
On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of a On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of a
call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts the call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts the
procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message, procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message,
and then awaits the next call message. and then awaits the next call message.
In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any given In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any given
time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC RPC time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC RPC
protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented, protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented,
and others are possible. For example, an implementation may choose and others are possible. For example, an implementation may choose
to have RPC calls be asynchronous, so that the client may do useful to have RPC calls be asynchronous so that the client may do useful
work while waiting for the reply from the server. Another work while waiting for the reply from the server. Another
possibility is to have the server create a separate task to process possibility is to have the server create a separate task to process
an incoming call, so that the original server can be free to receive an incoming call so that the original server can be free to receive
other requests. other requests.
There are a few important ways in which remote procedure calls differ There are a few important ways in which remote procedure calls differ
from local procedure calls: from local procedure calls.
o Error handling: failures of the remote server or network must be o Error handling: failures of the remote server or network must be
handled when using remote procedure calls. handled when using remote procedure calls.
o Global variables and side-effects: since the server does not o Global variables and side effects: since the server does not have
have access to the client's address space, hidden arguments access to the client's address space, hidden arguments cannot be
cannot be passed as global variables or returned as side passed as global variables or returned as side effects.
effects.
o Performance: remote procedures usually operate one or more o Performance: remote procedures usually operate at one or more
orders of magnitude slower than local procedure calls. orders of magnitude slower than local procedure calls.
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
other entity. 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.
5. Transports and Semantics 5. 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 scope of the definition of the RPC protocol excludes protocols. The scope of the definition of the RPC protocol excludes
how a message is passed from one process to another, and includes how a message is passed from one process to another, and includes
only the specification and interpretation of messages. However, the only the specification and interpretation of messages. However, the
application may wish to obtain information about (and perhaps control application may wish to obtain information about (and perhaps control
over) the transport layer through an interface not specified in this over) the transport layer through an interface not specified in this
document. For example, the transport protocol may impose a document. For example, the transport protocol may impose a
restriction on the maximum size of RPC messages, or it may be restriction on the maximum size of RPC messages, or it may be
stream-oriented like TCP [RFC793] with no size limit. The client and stream-oriented like TCP [RFC0793] with no size limit. The client
server must agree on their transport protocol choices. and server must agree on their transport protocol choices.
It is important to point out that RPC does not try to implement any It is important to point out that RPC does not try to implement any
kind of reliability and that the application may need to be aware of kind of reliability and that the application may need to be aware of
the type of transport protocol underneath RPC. If it knows it is the type of transport protocol underneath RPC. If it knows it is
running on top of a reliable transport such as TCP, then most of the running on top of a reliable transport such as TCP, then most of the
work is already done for it. On the other hand, if it is running on work is already done for it. On the other hand, if it is running on
top of an unreliable transport such as UDP [RFC768], it must top of an unreliable transport such as UDP [RFC0768], it must
implement its own time-out, retransmission, and duplicate detection implement its own time-out, retransmission, and duplicate detection
policies as the RPC protocol does not provide these services. policies as the RPC protocol does not provide these services.
Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does not attach Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does not attach
specific semantics to the remote procedures or their execution specific semantics to the remote procedures or their execution
requirements. Semantics can be inferred from (but should be requirements. Semantics can be inferred from (but should be
explicitly specified by) the underlying transport protocol. For explicitly specified by) the underlying transport protocol. For
example, consider RPC running on top of an unreliable transport such example, consider RPC running on top of an unreliable transport such
as UDP. If an application retransmits RPC call messages after time- as UDP. If an application retransmits RPC call messages after time-
outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything about outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything about
the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive a the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive a
reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at least reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at least
once. once.
A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from a A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from a
client and not regrant them in order to insure some degree of client and not regrant them, in order to insure some degree of
execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by taking execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by taking
advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every RPC advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every RPC
message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client RPC message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client RPC
entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client application entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client application
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
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 reconnections 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 such as [VMTP] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC
currently uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 10 currently uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 11
(Record Marking Standard) describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC ("Record Marking Standard") describes the mechanism employed by ONC
to utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as RPC to utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such
TCP. The mechanism by which future transports having different as TCP. The mechanism by which future transports having different
structural characteristics should be used to transfer ONC RPC structural characteristics should be used to transfer ONC RPC
messages should be specified by means of a standards-track RFC, once messages should be specified by means of a Standards Track RFC, once
such additional transports are defined. such additional transports are defined.
6. Binding and Rendezvous Independence 6. 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 useful,
useful, and the loader itself uses JSR to accomplish its task. and the loader itself uses JSR to accomplish its task. Likewise, the
binding software makes RPC useful, possibly using RPC to accomplish
Likewise, the binding software makes RPC useful, possibly using RPC this task.
to accomplish this task.
7. Authentication 7. Authentication
The RPC protocol provides the fields necessary for a client to The RPC protocol provides the fields necessary for a client to
identify itself to a service, and vice-versa, in each call and reply identify itself to a service, and vice-versa, in each call and reply
message. Security and access control mechanisms can be built on top message. Security and access control mechanisms can be built on top
of this message authentication. Several different authentication of this message authentication. Several different authentication
protocols can be supported. A field in the RPC header indicates protocols can be supported. A field in the RPC header indicates
which protocol is being used. More information on specific which protocol is being used. More information on specific
authentication protocols is in section 8.2: "Authentication, authentication protocols is in Section 8.2, "Authentication,
Integrity and Privacy". Integrity and Privacy".
8. RPC Protocol Requirements 8. RPC Protocol Requirements
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.
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:
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
8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures 8.1. RPC Programs and Procedures
The RPC call message has three unsigned integer fields -- remote The RPC call message has three unsigned-integer fields -- remote
program number, remote program version number, and remote procedure program number, remote program version number, and remote procedure
number -- which uniquely identify the procedure to be called. number -- that uniquely identify the procedure to be called. Program
Program numbers are administered by a central authority (IANA). Once numbers are administered by a central authority (IANA). Once
implementors have a program number, they can implement their remote implementors have a program number, they can implement their remote
program; the first implementation would most likely have the version program; the first implementation would most likely have the version
number 1 but MUST NOT be the number zero. Because most new protocols number 1 but MUST NOT be the number zero. Because most new protocols
evolve, a version field of the call message identifies which version evolve, a "version" field of the call message identifies which
of the protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable support version of the protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable
of both old and new protocols through the same server process. support of both old and new protocols through the same server
process.
The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called. These The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called. These
numbers are documented in the specific program's protocol numbers are documented in the specific program's protocol
specification. For example, a file service's protocol specification specification. For example, a file service's protocol specification
may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure number may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure number
12 is "write". 12 is "write".
Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions, Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions,
the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore, the the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore, the
call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is always call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is always
equal to two for the version of RPC described here. equal to 2 for the version of RPC described here.
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
version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers are
are returned. returned.
o The remote program is not available on the remote system. o The remote program is not available on the remote system.
o The remote program does not support the requested version o The remote program does not support the requested version number.
number. The lowest and highest supported remote program version The lowest and highest supported remote program version numbers
numbers are returned. are returned.
o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually o The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is usually a
a client side protocol or programming error.) 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.)
8.2. Authentication, Integrity and Privacy 8.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Privacy
Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are
provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has two provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has two
authentication fields, the credential and verifier. The reply authentication fields: the credential and the verifier. The reply
message has one authentication field, the response verifier. The RPC message has one authentication field: the response verifier. The RPC
protocol specification defines all three fields to be the following protocol specification defines all three fields to be the following
opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language
[RFC4506]): [RFC4506]):
enum auth_flavor { enum auth_flavor {
AUTH_NONE = 0, AUTH_NONE = 0,
AUTH_SYS = 1, AUTH_SYS = 1,
AUTH_SHORT = 2, AUTH_SHORT = 2,
AUTH_DH = 3, AUTH_DH = 3,
RPCSEC_GSS = 6 RPCSEC_GSS = 6
/* and more to be defined */ /* and more to be defined */
}; };
struct opaque_auth { struct opaque_auth {
auth_flavor flavor; auth_flavor flavor;
opaque body<400>; opaque body<400>;
}; };
In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor" In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor"
enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes which are opaque to enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes that are opaque to
(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 are specified by individual, independent
authentication protocol specifications. authentication protocol specifications.
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.
As demonstrated by RPCSEC_GSS, it is possible for an "auth_flavor" As demonstrated by RPCSEC_GSS, it is possible for an "auth_flavor" to
to also support integrity and privacy. also support integrity and privacy.
8.3. Program Number Assignment 8.3. Program Number Assignment
Program numbers are given out in groups according to the following Program numbers are given out in groups according to the following
chart: chart:
0x00000000 Reserved 0x00000000 Reserved
0x00000001 - 0x1fffffff To be assigned by IANA 0x00000001 - 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 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
for blocks of RPC program numbers in the first range by methods for blocks of RPC program numbers in the first range by methods
described in Appendix B. The third group is for applications that described in Appendix B. The third group is for applications that
generate program numbers dynamically. The final groups are reserved generate program numbers dynamically. The final groups are reserved
for future use, and should not be used. for future use, and should not be used.
8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol 8.4. Other Uses of the RPC Protocol
The intended use of this protocol is for calling remote procedures. The intended use of this protocol is for calling remote procedures.
Normally, each call message is matched with a reply message. Normally, each call message is matched with a reply message.
However, the protocol itself is a message-passing protocol with which However, the protocol itself is a message-passing protocol with which
other (non-procedure call) protocols can be implemented. other (non-procedure-call) protocols can be implemented.
8.4.1. Batching 8.4.1. Batching
Batching is useful when a client wishes to send an arbitrarily large Batching is useful when a client wishes to send an arbitrarily large
sequence of call messages to a server. Batching typically uses sequence of call messages to a server. Batching typically uses
reliable byte stream protocols (like TCP) for its transport. In the reliable byte stream protocols (like TCP) for its transport. In the
case of batching, the client never waits for a reply from the server, case of batching, the client never waits for a reply from the server,
and the server does not send replies to batch calls. A sequence of and the server does not send replies to batch calls. A sequence of
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
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 14
8.4.2. Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls 8.4.2. 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
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.
9. The RPC Message Protocol 9. The RPC Message Protocol
This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR data This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR data
description language [RFC4506]. description language [RFC4506].
enum msg_type { enum msg_type {
CALL = 0, CALL = 0,
REPLY = 1 REPLY = 1
}; };
A reply to a call message can take on two forms: The message was A reply to a call message can take on two forms: the message was
either accepted or rejected. either accepted or rejected.
enum reply_stat { enum reply_stat {
MSG_ACCEPTED = 0, MSG_ACCEPTED = 0,
MSG_DENIED = 1 MSG_DENIED = 1
}; };
Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the status Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the status
of an attempt to call a remote procedure. of an attempt to call a remote procedure.
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 38
AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */ AUTH_NET_ADDR = 12, /* wrong net address in ticket */
/* /*
* RPCSEC_GSS GSS related errors * RPCSEC_GSS GSS related errors
*/ */
RPCSEC_GSS_CREDPROBLEM = 13, /* no credentials for user */ RPCSEC_GSS_CREDPROBLEM = 13, /* no credentials for user */
RPCSEC_GSS_CTXPROBLEM = 14 /* problem with context */ RPCSEC_GSS_CTXPROBLEM = 14 /* problem with context */
}; };
As new authentication mechanisms are added, there may be a need for As new authentication mechanisms are added, there may be a need for
more status codes to support them. IANA will hand out new auth_stat more status codes to support them. IANA will hand out new auth_stat
numbers on a simple first-come, first-served basis as defined in the numbers on a simple First Come First Served basis as defined in the
"IANA Considerations" and Appendix B. "IANA Considerations" and Appendix B.
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 that 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.
struct rpc_msg { struct rpc_msg {
unsigned int xid; unsigned int xid;
union switch (msg_type mtype) { union switch (msg_type mtype) {
case CALL: case CALL:
call_body cbody; call_body cbody;
case REPLY: case REPLY:
reply_body rbody; reply_body rbody;
} body; } body;
}; };
Body of an RPC call: Body of an RPC call:
In version 2 of the RPC protocol specification, rpcvers MUST be equal In version 2 of the RPC protocol specification, rpcvers MUST be equal
to 2. The fields prog, vers, and proc specify the remote program, to 2. The fields "prog", "vers", and "proc" specify the remote
its version number, and the procedure within the remote program to be program, its version number, and the procedure within the remote
called. After these fields are two authentication parameters: cred program to be called. After these fields are two authentication
(authentication credential) and verf (authentication verifier). The parameters: cred (authentication credential) and verf (authentication
two authentication parameters are followed by the parameters to the verifier). The two authentication parameters are followed by the
remote procedure, which are specified by the specific program parameters to the remote procedure, which are specified by the
protocol. specific program protocol.
The purpose of the authentication verifier is to validate the The purpose of the authentication verifier is to validate the
authentication credential. Note that these two items are authentication credential. Note that these two items are
historically separate, but are always used together as one logical historically separate, but are always used together as one logical
entity. entity.
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 */
}; };
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 24 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
}; };
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;
Reply to an RPC call that was accepted by the server: Reply to an RPC call that was accepted by the server:
There could be an error even though the call was accepted. The first There could be an error even though the call was accepted. The first
field is an authentication verifier that the server generates in field is an authentication verifier that the server generates in
order to validate itself to the client. It is followed by a union order to validate itself to the client. It is followed by a union
whose discriminant is an enum accept_stat. The SUCCESS arm of the whose discriminant is an enum accept_stat. The SUCCESS arm of the
union is protocol specific. The PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, union is protocol-specific. The PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL,
GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR arms of the union are void. The GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR arms of the union are void. The
PROG_MISMATCH arm specifies the lowest and highest version numbers of PROG_MISMATCH arm specifies the lowest and highest version numbers of
the remote program supported by the server. the remote program supported by the server.
struct accepted_reply { struct accepted_reply {
opaque_auth verf; opaque_auth verf;
union switch (accept_stat stat) { union switch (accept_stat stat) {
case SUCCESS: case SUCCESS:
opaque results[0]; opaque results[0];
/* /*
skipping to change at page 15, line 13 skipping to change at page 14, line 40
* 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;
}; };
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.
union rejected_reply switch (reject_stat stat) { union rejected_reply switch (reject_stat stat) {
case RPC_MISMATCH: case RPC_MISMATCH:
struct { struct {
unsigned int low; unsigned int low;
unsigned int high; unsigned int high;
} mismatch_info; } mismatch_info;
case AUTH_ERROR: case AUTH_ERROR:
auth_stat stat; auth_stat stat;
}; };
10. Authentication Protocols 10. Authentication Protocols
As previously stated, authentication parameters are opaque, but As previously stated, authentication parameters are opaque, but
open-ended to the rest of the RPC protocol. This section defines two open-ended to the rest of the RPC protocol. This section defines two
standard "flavors" of authentication. Implementors are free to standard flavors of authentication. Implementors are free to invent
invent new authentication types, with the same rules of flavor number new authentication types, with the same rules of flavor number
assignment as there is for program number assignment. The "flavor" assignment as there are for program number assignment. The flavor of
of a credential or verifier refers to the value of the "flavor" field a credential or verifier refers to the value of the "flavor" field in
in the opaque_auth structure. Flavor numbers, like RPC program the opaque_auth structure. Flavor numbers, like RPC program numbers,
numbers, are also administered centrally, and developers may assign are also administered centrally, and developers may assign new flavor
new flavor numbers by methods described in Appendix B. Credentials numbers by methods described in Appendix B. Credentials and
and verifiers are represented as variable length opaque data (the verifiers are represented as variable-length opaque data (the "body"
"body" field in the opaque_auth structure). field in the opaque_auth structure).
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. Implementors authentication (AUTH_SYS) is described in Appendix A. Implementors
MAY include AUTH_SYS in their implementations to support existing MAY include AUTH_SYS in their implementations to support existing
applications. See "Security Considerations" for information about applications. See "Security Considerations" for information about
other, more secure, authentication flavors. other, more secure, authentication flavors.
10.1. Null Authentication 10.1. 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.
11. Record Marking Standard 11. Record Marking Standard
When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream transport When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream transport
protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message from protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message from
another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors. another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors.
This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one RM This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one RM
record. record.
A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A record A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A record
fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes of fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes of
fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as with fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as with
XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The number XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The number
encodes two values -- a boolean which indicates whether the fragment encodes two values -- a boolean that indicates whether the fragment
is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the fragment is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the fragment
is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value which is the is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value that is the
length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is the length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is the
highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits. highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits.
(Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!) (Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!)
12. The RPC Language 12. The RPC Language
Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a formal Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a formal
language, there is also need to describe the procedures that operate language, there is also need to describe the procedures that operate
on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The RPC on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The RPC
Language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition of language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition of
"program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The keywords "program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The keywords
"program" and "version" are reserved in the RPC Language, and "program" and "version" are reserved in the RPC language, and
implementations of XDR compilers MAY reserve these keywords even when implementations of XDR compilers MAY reserve these keywords even when
provided pure XDR, non-RPC, descriptions. The following example is provided with pure XDR, non-RPC, descriptions. The following example
used to describe the essence of the language. is used to describe the essence of the language.
12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language 12.1. An Example Service Described in the RPC Language
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 {
skipping to change at page 17, line 28 skipping to change at page 17, line 37
*/ */
version PING_VERS_ORIG { version PING_VERS_ORIG {
void void
PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0;
} = 1; } = 1;
} = 1; } = 1;
const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */ const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */
The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with two The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with two
procedures, PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL takes procedures: PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL takes
no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for computing no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for computing
round-trip times from the client to the server and back again. By round-trip times from the client to the server and back again. By
convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the same convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the same
semantics, and never require any kind of authentication. The second semantics and never require any kind of authentication. The second
procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse ping procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse ping
operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (in operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (in
microseconds) that the operation used. The next version, microseconds) that the operation used. The next version,
PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol and it does PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol, and it does
not contain PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful for not contain the PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful for
compatibility with old client programs, and as this program matures compatibility with old client programs, and as this program matures,
it may be dropped from the protocol entirely. it may be dropped from the protocol entirely.
12.2. The RPC Language Specification 12.2. The RPC Language Specification
The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined in RFC The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined in RFC
4506, except for the added definition of a "program-def" described 4506, except for the added definition of a "program-def", described
below. below.
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 "{"
procedure-def procedure-def
procedure-def * procedure-def *
"}" "=" constant ";" "}" "=" constant ";"
procedure-def: procedure-def:
proc-return identifier "(" proc-firstarg proc-return identifier "(" proc-firstarg
("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";" ("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";"
skipping to change at page 18, line 21 skipping to change at page 18, line 34
proc-return identifier "(" proc-firstarg proc-return identifier "(" proc-firstarg
("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";" ("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";"
proc-return: "void" | type-specifier proc-return: "void" | type-specifier
proc-firstarg: "void" | type-specifier proc-firstarg: "void" | type-specifier
12.3. Syntax Notes 12.3. Syntax Notes
o The following keywords are added and cannot be used as o The following keywords are added and cannot be used as
identifiers: "program" and "version"; identifiers: "program" and "version".
o A version name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a o A version name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a
program definition. Nor can a version number occur more than program definition. Neither can a version number occur more than
once within the scope of a program definition. once within the scope of a program definition.
o A procedure name cannot occur more than once within the scope of o A procedure name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a
a version definition. Nor can a procedure number occur more than version definition. Neither can a procedure number occur more
once within the scope of version definition. than once within the scope of version definition.
o Program identifiers are in the same name space as constant and o Program identifiers are in the same name space as constant and
type identifiers. type identifiers.
o Only unsigned constants can be assigned to programs, versions o Only unsigned constants can be assigned to programs, versions, and
and procedures. procedures.
o Current RPC language compilers do not generally support more o Current RPC language compilers do not generally support more than
than one type-specifier in procedure argument lists; the usual one type-specifier in procedure argument lists; the usual practice
practice is to wrap arguments into a structure. is to wrap arguments into a structure.
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
The assignment of RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers The assignment of RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers,
and authentication status numbers has in the past been performed by and authentication status numbers has in the past been performed by
Sun Microsystems, Inc (Sun). This is inappropriate for an IETF Sun Microsystems, Inc (Sun). This is inappropriate for an IETF
standards-track protocol, as such work is done well by the Internet Standards Track protocol, as such work is done well by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document proposes the Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document proposes the
transfer of authority over RPC program numbers, authentication flavor transfer of authority over RPC program numbers, authentication flavor
numbers and authentication status numbers described here from Sun numbers, and authentication status numbers described here from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. to IANA and proposes how IANA will maintain and Microsystems, Inc. to IANA and describes how IANA will maintain and
assign these numbers. Users of RPC protocols will benefit by having assign these numbers. Users of RPC protocols will benefit by having
an independent body responsible for these number assignments. an independent body responsible for these number assignments.
13.1. Numbering Requests to IANA 13.1. Numbering Requests to IANA
Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to
IANA to request one or more RPC numbers and the rules that apply. IANA to request one or more RPC numbers and the rules that apply.
IANA should store the request for documentary purposes, and put the IANA will store the request for documentary purposes and put the
following information into the public registry: following information into the public registry:
o The short description of purpose and use o The short description of purpose and use
o The program number(s) assigned o The program number(s) assigned
o The short identifier string(s) o The short identifier string(s)
13.2. Protecting Past Assignments 13.2. Protecting Past Assignments
Sun has made assignments in both number spaces since the original Sun has made assignments in both the RPC program number space and the
deployment of RPC. The assignments made by Sun Microsystems are RPC authentication flavor number space since the original deployment
still valid, and will be preserved. Sun will communicate all current of RPC. The assignments made by Sun Microsystems are still valid,
assignments in both number spaces to IANA before final handoff of and will be preserved. Sun has communicated all current assignments
number assignment is done. Current program and auth number in both number spaces to IANA and final handoff of number assignment
assignments are provided in Appendix C. Current authentication is complete. Current program and auth number assignments are
status numbers are listed in Section 9 of this document in the "enum provided in Appendix C. Current authentication status numbers are
auth_stat" definition. listed in Section 9 of this document in the "enum auth_stat"
definition.
13.3. RPC Number Assignment 13.3. RPC Number Assignment
Future IANA practice should deal with the following partitioning of Future IANA practice will deal with the following partitioning of the
the 32-bit number space as listed in Section 8.3. Detailed 32-bit number space as listed in Section 8.3. Detailed information
information for the administration of the partitioned blocks in for the administration of the partitioned blocks in Section 8.3 is
Section 8.3. is given below. given below.
13.3.1. To be assigned by IANA 13.3.1. To Be Assigned By IANA
The first block will be administered by IANA, with previous The first block will be administered by IANA, with previous
assignments by Sun protected. Previous assignments were restricted assignments by Sun protected. Previous assignments were restricted
to the range decimal 100000-399999 (0x000186a0 to 0x00061a7f), to the range decimal 100000-399999 (0x000186a0 to 0x00061a7f);
therefore IANA should begin assignments at decimal 400000. therefore, IANA will begin assignments at decimal 400000. Individual
Individual numbers should be grated on a first-come, first-served numbers should be grated on a First Come First Served basis, and
basis, and blocks should be granted under rules related to the size blocks should be granted under rules related to the size of the
of the block. block.
13.3.2. Defined by local administrator 13.3.2. Defined by Local Administrator
The "Defined by local administrator" block is available for any local The "Defined by local administrator" block is available for any local
administrative domain to use, in a similar manner to IP address administrative domain to use, in a similar manner to IP address
ranges reserved for private use. The expected use would be through ranges reserved for private use. The expected use would be through
the establishment of a local domain "authority" for assigning numbers the establishment of a local domain "authority" for assigning numbers
from this range. This authority would establish any policies or from this range. This authority would establish any policies or
procedures to be used within that local domain for use or assignment procedures to be used within that local domain for use or assignment
of RPC numbers from the range. The local domain should be of RPC numbers from the range. The local domain should be
sufficiently isolated that it would be unlikely that RPC applications sufficiently isolated that it would be unlikely that RPC applications
developed by other local domains could communicate with the domain. developed by other local domains could communicate with the domain.
This could result in RPC number contention, which would cause one of This could result in RPC number contention, which would cause one of
the applications to fail. In the absence of a local administrator, the applications to fail. In the absence of a local administrator,
this block can be utilized in a "Private Use" manner per [RFC5226]. this block can be utilized in a "Private Use" manner per [RFC5226].
13.3.3. Transient block 13.3.3. Transient Block
The "Transient" block can be used by any RPC application on a "as The "Transient" block can be used by any RPC application on an "as
available" basis. This range is intended for services that can available" basis. This range is intended for services that can
communicate a dynamically selected RPC program number to clients of communicate a dynamically selected RPC program number to clients of
the service. Any mechanism can be used to communicate the number. the service. Any mechanism can be used to communicate the number.
Examples include shared memory when the client and server are located For example, either shared memory when the client and server are
on the same system, or a network message (either RPC or otherwise) located on the same system or a network message (either RPC or
that disseminates the selected number. otherwise) that disseminates the selected number can be used.
The transient block is not administered. An RPC service uses this The transient block is not administered. An RPC service uses this
range by selecting a number in the transient range and attempting to range by selecting a number in the transient range and attempting to
register that number with the local system's RPC bindery (see the register that number with the local system's RPC bindery (see the
RPCBPROC_SET or PMAPPROC_SET procedures in "Binding Protocols for ONC RPCBPROC_SET or PMAPPROC_SET procedures in "Binding Protocols for ONC
RPC", [RFC1833]). If successful, no other RPC service was using that RPC Version 2", [RFC1833]). If successful, no other RPC service was
number and the RPC Bindery has assigned that number to the requesting using that number and the RPC Bindery has assigned that number to the
RPC application. The registration is valid until the RPC Bindery requesting RPC application. The registration is valid until the RPC
terminates, which normally would only happen if the system reboots Bindery terminates, which normally would only happen if the system
causing all applications, including the RPC service using the reboots, causing all applications, including the RPC service using
transient number, to terminate. If the transient number registration the transient number, to terminate. If the transient number
fails, another RPC application is using the number and the requestor registration fails, another RPC application is using the number and
must select another number and try again. To avoid conflicts, the the requestor must select another number and try again. To avoid
recommended method is to select a number randomly from the transient conflicts, the recommended method is to select a number randomly from
range. the transient range.
13.3.4. Reserved block 13.3.4. Reserved Block
The "Reserved" blocks are available for future use. RPC applications The "Reserved" blocks are available for future use. RPC applications
must not use numbers in these ranges unless their use is allowed by must not use numbers in these ranges unless their use is allowed by
future action by the IESG. future action by the IESG.
13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks 13.3.5. RPC Number Sub-Blocks
RPC numbers are usually assigned for specific RPC services. Some RPC numbers are usually assigned for specific RPC services. Some
applications, however, require multiple RPC numbers for a service. applications, however, require multiple RPC numbers for a service.
The most common example is an RPC service that needs to have multiple The most common example is an RPC service that needs to have multiple
instances of the service active simultaneously at a specific site. instances of the service active simultaneously at a specific site.
RPC does not have an "instance identifier" in the protocol, so either RPC does not have an "instance identifier" in the protocol, so either
a mechanism must be implemented to multiplex RPC requests amongst a mechanism must be implemented to multiplex RPC requests amongst
various instances of the service, or unique RPC numbers must be used various instances of the service or unique RPC numbers must be used
by each instance. by each instance.
In these cases, the RPC protocol used with the various numbers may be In these cases, the RPC protocol used with the various numbers may be
different or the same. The numbers may be assigned dynamically by different or the same. The numbers may either be assigned
the application, or as part of a site-specific administrative dynamically by the application, or as part of a site-specific
decision. If possible, RPC services that dynamically assign RPC administrative decision. If possible, RPC services that dynamically
numbers should use the "Transient" RPC number block defined in assign RPC numbers should use the "Transient" RPC number block
section 2. If not possible, RPC number sub-blocks may be requested. defined in Section 13.3.3. If not possible, RPC number sub-blocks
may be requested.
Assignment of RPC Number Sub-Blocks is controlled by the size of the Assignment of RPC Number Sub-Blocks is controlled by the size of the
sub-block being requested. "Specification Required" and "IESG sub-block being requested. "Specification Required" and "IESG
Approval" are used as defined by [RFC5226] Section 4.1. Approval" are used as defined by Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
Size of sub-block Assignment Method Authority Size of sub-block Assignment Method Authority
----------------- ----------------- --------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------
Up to 100 numbers First Come First Served IANA Up to 100 numbers First Come First Served IANA
Up to 1000 numbers Specification Required IANA Up to 1000 numbers Specification Required IANA
More than 1000 numbers IESG Approval required IESG More than 1000 numbers IESG Approval required IESG
Note: sub-blocks can be any size. The limits given above are Note: sub-blocks can be any size. The limits given above are
maximums and smaller size sub-blocks are allowed. maximums, and smaller size sub-blocks are allowed.
Sub-blocks sized up to 100 numbers may be assigned by IANA on a First Sub-blocks sized up to 100 numbers may be assigned by IANA on a First
Come First Served basis. The RPC Service Description included in the Come First Served basis. The RPC Service Description included in the
range must include an indication of how the sub-block is managed. At range must include an indication of how the sub-block is managed. At
a minimum, the statement should indicate whether the sub-block is a minimum, the statement should indicate whether the sub-block is
used with a single RPC protocol or multiple RPC protocols, and used with a single RPC protocol or multiple RPC protocols, and
whether the numbers are dynamically assigned or statically (through whether the numbers are dynamically assigned or statically (through
administrative action) assigned. administrative action) assigned.
Sub-blocks of up to 1000 numbers must be documented in detail. The Sub-blocks of up to 1000 numbers must be documented in detail. The
documentation must describe the RPC protocol or protocols that are to documentation must describe the RPC protocol or protocols that are to
be used in the range. It must also describe how the numbers within be used in the range. It must also describe how the numbers within
the sub-block are to be assigned or used. the sub-block are to be assigned or used.
Sub-blocks sized over 1000 numbers must be documented as described Sub-blocks sized over 1000 numbers must be documented as described
above, and the assignment must be approved by the IESG. It is above, and the assignment must be approved by the IESG. It is
expected that this will be rare. expected that this will be rare.
In order to avoid multiple requests of large blocks of numbers the In order to avoid multiple requests of large blocks of numbers, the
following rule is proposed. following rule is proposed.
Requests up to and including 100 RPC numbers are handled via the Requests up to and including 100 RPC numbers are handled via the
First Come First Served assignment method. This 100 number First Come First Served assignment method. This 100 number threshold
threshhold applies to the total number of RPC numbers assigned to an applies to the total number of RPC numbers assigned to an individual
individual or entity. For example, if an individual or entity first or entity. For example, if an individual or entity first requests,
requests say 70 numbers, and then later requests 40 numbers, then the say, 70 numbers, and then later requests 40 numbers, then the request
request for the 40 numbers will be assigned via the Specification for the 40 numbers will be assigned via the Specification Required
Required method. As long as the total number of numbers assigned method. As long as the total number of numbers assigned does not
does not exceed 1000, IANA is free to waive the Specification exceed 1000, IANA is free to waive the Specification Required
Required assignment for incremental requests of less than 100 assignment for incremental requests of less than 100 numbers.
numbers.
If an individual or entity has under 1000 numbers and later requests If an individual or entity has under 1000 numbers and later requests
an additional set of numbers such that the individual or entity would an additional set of numbers such that the individual or entity would
be granted over 1000 numbers, then the additional request will be granted over 1000 numbers, then the additional request will
require IESG Approval. require IESG Approval.
13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment 13.4. RPC Authentication Flavor Number Assignment
The second number space is the authentication mechanism identifier, The second number space is the authentication mechanism identifier,
or "flavor", number. This number is used to distinguish between or "flavor", number. This number is used to distinguish between
various authentication mechanisms which can be optionally used with various authentication mechanisms that can be optionally used with an
an RPC message. An authentication identifier is used in the "flavor" RPC message. An authentication identifier is used in the "flavor"
field of the "opaque_auth" structure. field of the "opaque_auth" structure.
13.4.1. Assignment Policy 13.4.1. Assignment Policy
Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to
IANA to request one or more RPC auth numbers and the rules that IANA to request one or more RPC auth numbers and the rules that
apply. IANA should store the request for documentary purposes, and apply. IANA will store the request for documentary purposes and put
put the following information into the public registry: the following information into the public registry:
o The short identifier string(s) o The short identifier string(s)
o The auth number(s) assigned o The auth number(s) assigned
o The short description of purpose and use o The short description of purpose and use
13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-flavors 13.4.2. Auth Flavors vs. Pseudo-Flavors
Recent progress in RPC security has moved away from new auth flavors Recent progress in RPC security has moved away from new auth flavors
as used by AUTH_DH [DH], and focused on using the existing RPCSEC_GSS as used by AUTH_DH [DH], and has focused on using the existing
[RFC2203] flavor and inventing novel GSS-API mechanisms which can be RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] flavor and inventing novel GSS-API (Generic
used with it. Even though RPCSEC_GSS is an assigned authentication Security Services Application Programming Interface) mechanisms that
flavor, use of a new RPCSEC_GSS mechanism with NFS ([RFC1094] can be used with it. Even though RPCSEC_GSS is an assigned
[RFC1813] and [RFC3530]) will require the registration of 'pseudo- authentication flavor, use of a new RPCSEC_GSS mechanism with the
flavors' which are used to negotiate security mechanisms in an Network File System (NFS) ([RFC1094] [RFC1813], and [RFC3530]) will
unambiguous way, as defined by [RFC2623]. Existing pseudo-flavors require the registration of 'pseudo-flavors' that are used to
have been granted in the decimal range 390000-390255. New pseudo- negotiate security mechanisms in an unambiguous way, as defined by
flavor requests should be granted by IANA within this block on a [RFC2623]. Existing pseudo-flavors have been granted in the decimal
First Come First Served basis. range 390000-390255. New pseudo-flavor requests will be granted by
IANA within this block on a First Come First Served basis.
For non-pseudo-flavor requests, IANA should begin granting RPC For non-pseudo-flavor requests, IANA will begin granting RPC
authentication flavor numbers at 400000 on a First Come First Served authentication flavor numbers at 400000 on a First Come First Served
basis to avoid conflicts with currently granted numbers. basis to avoid conflicts with currently granted numbers.
For authentication flavors or RPCSEC_GSS mechanisms to be used on the For authentication flavors or RPCSEC_GSS mechanisms to be used on the
Internet, it is strongly advised that an informational or standards- Internet, it is strongly advised that an Informational or Standards
track RFC be published describing the authentication mechanism Track RFC be published describing the authentication mechanism
behaviour and parameters. behaviour and parameters.
13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment 13.5. Authentication Status Number Assignment
The final number space is the authentication status or "auth_stat" The final number space is the authentication status or "auth_stat"
values which describe the nature of a problem found during an attempt values that describe the nature of a problem found during an attempt
to authenicate or validate authentication. The complete initial list to authenticate or validate authentication. The complete initial
of these values is found in Section 9 of this document, in the list of these values is found in Section 9 of this document, in the
"auth_stat" enum listing. It is expected that it will be rare to add "auth_stat" enum listing. It is expected that it will be rare to add
values, but that a small number of new values may be added from time values, but that a small number of new values may be added from time
to time as new authentication flavors introduce new possibilities. to time as new authentication flavors introduce new possibilities.
Numbers should be granted on a First Come First Served basis to avoid Numbers should be granted on a First Come First Served basis to avoid
conflicts with currently granted numbers. conflicts with currently granted numbers.
13.5.1. Assignment Policy 13.5.1. Assignment Policy
Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to Appendix B of this document describes the information to be sent to
IANA to request one or more auth_stat values and the rules that IANA to request one or more auth_stat values and the rules that
apply. IANA should store the request for documentary purposes, and apply. IANA will store the request for documentary purposes, and put
put the following information into the public registry: the following information into the public registry:
o The short identifier string(s) o The short identifier string(s)
o The auth_stat number(s) assigned o The auth_stat number(s) assigned
o The short description of purpose and use o The short description of purpose and use
14. Security Considerations 14. Security Considerations
AUTH_SYS as described in Appendix A is known to be insecure due to AUTH_SYS as described in Appendix A is known to be insecure due to
the lack of a verifier to permit the credential to be validated. the lack of a verifier to permit the credential to be validated.
AUTH_SYS SHOULD NOT be used for services which permit clients to AUTH_SYS SHOULD NOT be used for services that permit clients to
modify data. AUTH_SYS MUST NOT be specified as RECOMMENDED or modify data. AUTH_SYS MUST NOT be specified as RECOMMENDED or
REQUIRED for any standards-track RPC service. REQUIRED for any Standards Track RPC service.
AUTH_DH as mentioned in sections 8.2 and 13.4.2 is considered AUTH_DH as mentioned in Sections 8.2 and 13.4.2 is considered
obsolete and insecure; see [RFC2695]. AUTH_SYS SHOULD NOT be used obsolete and insecure; see [RFC2695]. AUTH_DH SHOULD NOT be used for
for services which permit clients to modify data. AUTH_DH MUST NOT services that permit clients to modify data. AUTH_DH MUST NOT be
be specified as RECOMMENDED or REQUIRED for any standards-track RPC specified as RECOMMENDED or REQUIRED for any Standards Track RPC
service. service.
[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 the future should implement trivial RPC programs developed in the 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.
Standards-track RPC services MUST mandate support for RPCSEC_GSS, and Standards Track RPC services MUST mandate support for RPCSEC_GSS, and
MUST mandate support for an authentication pseudo-flavor with MUST mandate support for an authentication pseudo-flavor with
appropriate levels of security, depending on the need for simple appropriate levels of security, depending on the need for simple
authentication, integrity a.k.a. non-repudiation, or data privacy. authentication, integrity (a.k.a. non-repudiation), or data privacy.
15. Appendix A: System Authentication 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;
string machinename<255>; string machinename<255>;
unsigned int uid; unsigned int uid;
unsigned int gid; unsigned int gid;
unsigned int gids<16>; unsigned int gids<16>;
}; };
The "stamp" is an arbitrary ID which the caller machine may generate. The "stamp" is an arbitrary ID that the caller machine may generate.
The "machinename" is the name of the caller's machine (like The "machinename" is the name of the caller's machine (like
"krypton"). The "uid" is the caller's effective user ID. The "gid" "krypton"). The "uid" is the caller's effective user ID. The "gid"
is the caller's effective group ID. The "gids" is a counted array of is the caller's effective group ID. "gids" are a counted array of
groups which contain the caller as a member. The verifier groups that contain the caller as a member. The verifier
accompanying the credential should have "AUTH_NONE" flavor value accompanying the credential should have "AUTH_NONE" flavor value
(defined above). Note this credential is only unique within a (defined above). Note that this credential is only unique within a
particular domain of machine names, uids, and gids. particular domain of machine names, uids, and gids.
The flavor value of the verifier received in the reply message from The flavor value of the verifier received in the reply message from
the server may be "AUTH_NONE" or "AUTH_SHORT". In the case of the server may be "AUTH_NONE" or "AUTH_SHORT". In the case of
"AUTH_SHORT", the bytes of the reply verifier's string encode an "AUTH_SHORT", the bytes of the reply verifier's string encode an
opaque structure. This new opaque structure may now be passed to the opaque structure. This new opaque structure may now be passed to the
server instead of the original "AUTH_SYS" flavor credential. The server instead of the original "AUTH_SYS" flavor credential. The
server may keep a cache which maps shorthand opaque structures server may keep a cache that maps shorthand opaque structures (passed
(passed back by way of an "AUTH_SHORT" style reply verifier) to the back by way of an "AUTH_SHORT" style reply verifier) to the original
original credentials of the caller. The caller can save network credentials of the caller. The caller can save network bandwidth and
bandwidth and server cpu cycles by using the shorthand credential. server cpu cycles by using the shorthand credential.
The server may flush the shorthand opaque structure at any time. If The server may flush the shorthand opaque structure at any time. If
this happens, the remote procedure call message will be rejected due this happens, the remote procedure call message will be rejected due
to an authentication error. The reason for the failure will be to an authentication error. The reason for the failure will be
"AUTH_REJECTEDCRED". At this point, the client may wish to try the "AUTH_REJECTEDCRED". At this point, the client may wish to try the
original "AUTH_SYS" style of credential. original "AUTH_SYS" style of credential.
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).
16. Appendix B: Requesting RPC-related numbers from IANA Appendix B: Requesting RPC-Related Numbers from IANA
RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers and authentication RPC program numbers, authentication flavor numbers, and
status numbers which must be unique across all networks are assigned authentication status numbers that must be unique across all networks
by the Internet Assigned Number Authority. To apply for a single are assigned by the Internet Assigned Number Authority. To apply for
number or a block of numbers, electronic mail must be sent to IANA a single number or a block of numbers, electronic mail must be sent
<iana@iana.org> with the following information: to IANA <iana@iana.org> with the following information:
o The type of number(s) (program number or authentication flavor o The type of number(s) (program number or authentication flavor
number or authentication status number) sought number or authentication status number) sought
o How many numbers are sought o How many numbers are sought
o The name of person or company which will use the number o The name of the person or company that will use the number
o An "identifier string" which associates the number with a o An "identifier string" that associates the number with a service
service
o Email address of the contact person for the service which will o Email address of the contact person for the service that will be
be using the number. using the number
o A short description of the purpose and use of the number o A short description of the purpose and use of the number
o If an authentication flavor number is sought, and the number o If an authentication flavor number is sought, and the number will
will be a 'pseudo-flavor' intended for use with RPCSEC_GSS and be a 'pseudo-flavor' intended for use with RPCSEC_GSS and NFS,
NFS, mappings analogous to those in Section 4.2 of [RFC2623] are mappings analogous to those in Section 4.2 of [RFC2623]
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 and authentication status numbers For all RPC authentication flavor and authentication status numbers
to be used on the Internet, it is strongly advised that an to be used on the Internet, it is strongly advised that an
informational or standards-track RFC be published describing the Informational or Standards Track RFC be published describing the
authentication mechanism behaviour and parameters. authentication mechanism behaviour and parameters.
17. Appendix C: Current number assignments Appendix C: Current Number Assignments
# #
# Sun-assigned RPC numbers # Sun-assigned RPC numbers
# #
# Description/Owner RPC Program Number Short Name # Description/Owner RPC Program Number Short Name
# ----------------------------------------------------------------- # -----------------------------------------------------------------
portmapper 100000 pmapprog portmap rpcbind portmapper 100000 pmapprog portmap rpcbind
remote stats 100001 rstatprog remote stats 100001 rstatprog
remote users 100002 rusersprog remote users 100002 rusersprog
nfs 100003 nfs nfs 100003 nfs
skipping to change at page 29, line 35 skipping to change at page 30, line 28
100163 test8 100163 test8
100164 test9 100164 test9
100165 test10 100165 test10
100166 nfsmapid 100166 nfsmapid
100167 SUN_WBEM_C_CIMON_HANDLE 100167 SUN_WBEM_C_CIMON_HANDLE
100168 sacmmd 100168 sacmmd
100169 fmd_adm 100169 fmd_adm
100170 fmd_api 100170 fmd_api
100171 [unknown] 100171 [unknown]
100172 idmapd 100172 idmapd
[available] 100173 - 100174 unassigned 100173 - 100174
snmptrap 100175 na.snmptrap snmptrap 100175 na.snmptrap
[available] 100176-100199 unassigned 100176-100199
[available] 100200 unassigned 100200
MVS/NFS Memory usage stats server 100201 [unknown] MVS/NFS Memory usage stats server 100201 [unknown]
Netapp 100202-100207 Netapp 100202-100207
[available] 100208-100210 unassigned 100208-100210
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100211 [unknown] 8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100211 [unknown]
8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100212 [unknown] 8.0 SunLink SNA RJE 100212 [unknown]
100213 ShowMe 100213 ShowMe
100214 [unknown] 100214 [unknown]
100215 [unknown] 100215 [unknown]
AUTH_RSA Key service 100216 keyrsa AUTH_RSA Key service 100216 keyrsa
SunSelect PC license service 100217 [unknown] SunSelect PC license service 100217 [unknown]
WWCS (Corporate) 100218 sunsolve WWCS (Corporate) 100218 sunsolve
100219 cstatd 100219 cstatd
X/Open Federated Naming 100220 xfn_server_prog X/Open Federated Naming 100220 xfn_server_prog
skipping to change at page 31, line 21 skipping to change at page 32, line 14
NIS+ 100300 nisplus NIS+ 100300 nisplus
NIS+ 100301 nis_cachemgr NIS+ 100301 nis_cachemgr
NIS+ call back protocol 100302 [unknown] NIS+ call back protocol 100302 [unknown]
NIS+ Password Update Daemon 100303 nispasswdd NIS+ Password Update Daemon 100303 nispasswdd
FNS context update in NIS 100304 fnsypd FNS context update in NIS 100304 fnsypd
100305 [unknown] 100305 [unknown]
100306 [unknown] 100306 [unknown]
100307 [unknown] 100307 [unknown]
100308 [unknown] 100308 [unknown]
100309 [unknown] 100309 [unknown]
[available] 100310 - 100398 unassigned 100310 - 100398
nfscksum 100399 nfscksum nfscksum 100399 nfscksum
network utilization agent 100400 netmgt_netu_prog network utilization agent 100400 netmgt_netu_prog
network rpc ping agent 100401 netmgt_rping_prog network rpc ping agent 100401 netmgt_rping_prog
100402 na.shell 100402 na.shell
picsprint 100403 na.picslp picsprint 100403 na.picslp
100404 traps 100404 traps
100405 - 100409 [unknown] 100405 - 100409 [unknown]
100410 jdsagent 100410 jdsagent
100411 na.haconfig 100411 na.haconfig
100412 na.halhost 100412 na.halhost
100413 na.hadtsrvc 100413 na.hadtsrvc
100414 na.hamdstat 100414 na.hamdstat
100415 na.neoadmin 100415 na.neoadmin
100416 ex1048prog 100416 ex1048prog
100417 rdmaconfig rdmaconfig 100417 rpc.rdmaconfig
IETF NFSv4 Working Group - FedFS 100418 - 100421 IETF NFSv4 Working Group - FedFS 100418 - 100421
100422 mdcommd 100422 mdcommd
100423 kiprop krb5_iprop 100423 kiprop krb5_iprop
100424 stsf 100424 stsf
[available] 100425 - 100499 unassigned 100425 - 100499
Sun Microsystems 100500 - 100531 [unknown] Sun Microsystems 100500 - 100531 [unknown]
100532 ucmmstate 100532 ucmmstate
100533 scrcmd 100533 scrcmd
[available] 100534 - 100999 unassigned 100534 - 100999
nse link daemon 101002 nselinktool nse link daemon 101002 nselinktool
nse link application 101003 nselinkapp nse link application 101003 nselinkapp
[available] 101004 - 101900 unassigned 101004 - 101900
101901 [unknown] 101901 [unknown]
[available] 101902 - 101999 unassigned 101902 - 101999
AssetLite 102000 [unknown] AssetLite 102000 [unknown]
PagerTool 102001 [unknown] PagerTool 102001 [unknown]
Discover 102002 [unknown] Discover 102002 [unknown]
[available] 102003 - 105000 unassigned 102003 - 105000
ShowMe 105001 sharedapp ShowMe 105001 sharedapp
Registry 105002 REGISTRY_PROG Registry 105002 REGISTRY_PROG
Print-server 105003 print-server Print-server 105003 print-server
Proto-server 105004 proto-server Proto-server 105004 proto-server
Notification-server 105005 notification-server Notification-server 105005 notification-server
Transfer-agent-server 105006 transfer-agent-server Transfer-agent-server 105006 transfer-agent-server
[available] 105007 - 110000 unassigned 105007 - 110000
110001 tsolrpcb 110001 tsolrpcb
110002 tsolpeerinfo 110002 tsolpeerinfo
110003 tsolboot 110003 tsolboot
120001 cmip na.cmip 120001 cmip na.cmip
120002 na.osidiscover 120002 na.osidiscover
120003 cmiptrap 120003 cmiptrap
[available] 120004 - 120099 unassigned 120004 - 120099
120100 eserver 120100 eserver
120101 repserver 120101 repserver
120102 swserver 120102 swserver
120103 dmd 120103 dmd
120104 ca 120104 ca
[available] 120105 - 120125 unassigned 120105 - 120125
120126 nf_fddi 120126 nf_fddi
120127 nf_fddismt7_2 120127 nf_fddismt7_2
[available] 120128 - 150000 unassigned 120128 - 150000
pc passwd authorization 150001 pcnfsdprog pc passwd authorization 150001 pcnfsdprog
TOPS name mapping 150002 [unknown] TOPS name mapping 150002 [unknown]
TOPS external attribute storage 150003 [unknown] TOPS external attribute storage 150003 [unknown]
TOPS hierarchical file system 150004 [unknown] TOPS hierarchical file system 150004 [unknown]
TOPS NFS transparency extensions 150005 [unknown] TOPS NFS transparency extensions 150005 [unknown]
PC NFS License 150006 pcnfslicense PC NFS License 150006 pcnfslicense
RDA 150007 rdaprog RDA 150007 rdaprog
WabiServer 150008 wsprog WabiServer 150008 wsprog
WabiServer 150009 wsrlprog WabiServer 150009 wsrlprog
[available] 150010 - 160000 unassigned 150010 - 160000
160001 nihon-cm 160001 nihon-cm
160002 nihon-ce 160002 nihon-ce
[available] 160003 - 170099 unassigned 160003 - 170099
170100 domf_daemon0 170100 domf_daemon0
170101 domf_daemon1 170101 domf_daemon1
170102 domf_daemon2 170102 domf_daemon2
170103 domf_daemon3 170103 domf_daemon3
170104 domf_daemon4 170104 domf_daemon4
170105 domf_daemon5 170105 domf_daemon5
[available] 170106 - 179999 unassigned 170106 - 179999
180000 cecprog 180000 cecprog
180001 cecsysprog 180001 cecsysprog
180002 cec2cecprog 180002 cec2cecprog
180003 cesprog 180003 cesprog
180004 ces2cesprog 180004 ces2cesprog
180005 cet2cetprog 180005 cet2cetprog
180006 cet2cetdoneprog 180006 cet2cetdoneprog
180007 cetcomprog 180007 cetcomprog
180008 cetsysprog 180008 cetsysprog
180009 cghapresenceprog 180009 cghapresenceprog
skipping to change at page 33, line 33 skipping to change at page 34, line 26
180021 crimservicesprog 180021 crimservicesprog
180022 crimsyscomponentprog 180022 crimsyscomponentprog
180023 crimsysservicesprog 180023 crimsysservicesprog
180024 csmagtapiprog 180024 csmagtapiprog
180025 csmagtcallbackprog 180025 csmagtcallbackprog
180026 csmreplicaprog 180026 csmreplicaprog
180027 csmsrvprog 180027 csmsrvprog
180028 cssccltprog 180028 cssccltprog
180029 csscsvrprog 180029 csscsvrprog
180030 csscopresultprog 180030 csscopresultprog
[available] 180031 - 199999 unassigned 180031 - 199999
200000 pyramid_nfs 200000 pyramid_nfs
200001 pyramid_reserved 200001 pyramid_reserved
200002 cadds_image 200002 cadds_image
200003 stellar_name_prog 200003 stellar_name_prog
200004 [unknown] 200004 [unknown]
200005 [unknown] 200005 [unknown]
200006 pacl 200006 pacl
200007 lookupids 200007 lookupids
200008 ax_statd_prog 200008 ax_statd_prog
200009 ax_statd2_prog 200009 ax_statd2_prog
skipping to change at page 34, line 11 skipping to change at page 35, line 4
200015 [unknown] 200015 [unknown]
200016 easerpcd 200016 easerpcd
200017 rlxnfs 200017 rlxnfs
200018 sascuiddprog 200018 sascuiddprog
200019 knfsd 200019 knfsd
200020 ftnfsd ftnfsd_program 200020 ftnfsd ftnfsd_program
200021 ftsyncd ftsyncd_program 200021 ftsyncd ftsyncd_program
200022 ftstatd ftstatd_program 200022 ftstatd ftstatd_program
200023 exportmap 200023 exportmap
200024 nfs_metadata 200024 nfs_metadata
[available] 200025 - 200200 unassigned 200025 - 200200
200201 ecoad 200201 ecoad
200202 eamon 200202 eamon
200203 ecolic 200203 ecolic
200204 cs_printstatus_svr 200204 cs_printstatus_svr
200205 ecodisc 200205 ecodisc
[available] 200206 - 300000 unassigned 200206 - 300000
300001 adt_rflockprog 300001 adt_rflockprog
300002 columbine1 300002 columbine1
300003 system33_prog 300003 system33_prog
300004 frame_prog1 300004 frame_prog1
300005 uimxprog 300005 uimxprog
300006 rvd 300006 rvd
300007 entombing daemon 300007 entombing daemon
300008 account mgmt system 300008 account mgmt system
300009 frame_prog2 300009 frame_prog2
300010 beeper access 300010 beeper access
skipping to change at page 43, line 23 skipping to change at page 44, line 16
300440 dgux_mgr 300440 dgux_mgr
300441 pfxd 300441 pfxd
300442 tds 300442 tds
300443 ovomadmind 300443 ovomadmind
300444 ovomgate 300444 ovomgate
300445 omadmind 300445 omadmind
300446 nps 300446 nps
300447 npd 300447 npd
300448 tsa 300448 tsa
300449 cdaimc 300449 cdaimc
300450-300452 unassigned 300450-300452
300453 ckt_implementation 300453 ckt_implementation
300454 mda-tactical 300454 mda-tactical
300455-300458 unassigned 300455-300458
300459 atrrun 300459 atrrun
300460 RoadRunner 300460 RoadRunner
300461 nas 300461 nas
300462 undelete 300462 undelete
300463 ovacadd 300463 ovacadd
300464 tbdesmai 300464 tbdesmai
300465 arguslm 300465 arguslm
300466 dmd 300466 dmd
300467 drd 300467 drd
300468 fm_help 300468 fm_help
skipping to change at page 50, line 30 skipping to change at page 51, line 23
300778 [unknown] 300778 [unknown]
300779 [unknown] 300779 [unknown]
300780 [unknown] 300780 [unknown]
300781 dsmrecalld 300781 dsmrecalld
300782 [unknown] 300782 [unknown]
300783 [unknown] 300783 [unknown]
300784 twrgcontrol 300784 twrgcontrol
300785 twrled 300785 twrled
300786 twrcfgdb 300786 twrcfgdb
BMC software 300787-300886 BMC software 300787-300886
[available] 300887 - 300999 unassigned 300887 - 300999
Sun Microsystems 301000-302000 [ 2000 numbers ] Sun Microsystems 301000-302000 [ 2000 numbers ]
[available] 302001-349999 unassigned 302001-349999
American Airlines 350000 - 350999 American Airlines 350000 - 350999
Acucobol Inc. 351000 - 351099 Acucobol Inc. 351000 - 351099
The Bristol Group 351100 - 351249 The Bristol Group 351100 - 351249
Amteva Technologies 351250 - 351349 Amteva Technologies 351250 - 351349
351350 wfmMgmtApp 351350 wfmMgmtApp
351351 wfmMgmtDataSrv 351351 wfmMgmtDataSrv
351352 wfmMgmtFut1 351352 wfmMgmtFut1
351353 wfmMgmtFut1 351353 wfmMgmtFut1
351354 wfmAPM 351354 wfmAPM
351355 wfmIAMgr 351355 wfmIAMgr
351356 wfmECMgr 351356 wfmECMgr
351357 wfmLookOut 351357 wfmLookOut
351358 wfmAgentFut1 351358 wfmAgentFut1
351359 wfmAgentFut2 351359 wfmAgentFut2
[available] 351360 - 351406 unassigned 351360 - 351406
Sterling Software ITD 351407 csed Sterling Software ITD 351407 csed
351360 sched10d 351360 sched10d
351361 sched11d 351361 sched11d
351362 sched12d 351362 sched12d
351363 sched13d 351363 sched13d
351364 sched14d 351364 sched14d
351365 sched15d 351365 sched15d
351366 sched16d 351366 sched16d
351367 sched17d 351367 sched17d
351368 sched18d 351368 sched18d
skipping to change at page 53, line 36 skipping to change at page 54, line 29
351480 dscv 351480 dscv
351481 cb_svc 351481 cb_svc
351482 [unknown] 351482 [unknown]
351483 iprobe 351483 iprobe
351484 omniconf 351484 omniconf
351485 isan 351485 isan
BG Partners 351486 - 351500 BG Partners 351486 - 351500
351501 mond 351501 mond
351502 iqlremote 351502 iqlremote
351503 iqlalarm 351503 iqlalarm
[available] 351504 - 351599 unassigned 351504 - 351599
Orion Multisystems 351600-351855 Orion Multisystems 351600-351855
[available] 351856 - 351899 unassigned 351856 - 351899
NSP lab 351900 - 351999 NSP lab 351900 - 351999
[available] 351999 - 352232 unassigned 351999 - 352232
352233 asautostart 352233 asautostart
352234 asmediad1 352234 asmediad1
352235 asmediad2 352235 asmediad2
352236 asmediad3 352236 asmediad3
352237 asmediad4 352237 asmediad4
352238 asmediad5 352238 asmediad5
352239 asmediad6 352239 asmediad6
352240 asmediad7 352240 asmediad7
352241 asmediad8 352241 asmediad8
352242 asmediad9 352242 asmediad9
skipping to change at page 55, line 5 skipping to change at page 55, line 46
352283 bofproxysd 352283 bofproxysd
352284 bofproxyce 352284 bofproxyce
352285 bofproxyse 352285 bofproxyse
352286 bofproxycf 352286 bofproxycf
352287 bofproxysf 352287 bofproxysf
352288 bofproxypo0 352288 bofproxypo0
352289 bofproxypo1 352289 bofproxypo1
352290 bofproxypo2 352290 bofproxypo2
352291 bofproxypo3 352291 bofproxypo3
352292 bofproxypo4 352292 bofproxypo4
[available] 352293-370000 unassigned 352293-370000
370001 [unknown] 370001 [unknown]
370002 [unknown] 370002 [unknown]
370003 [unknown] 370003 [unknown]
370004 [unknown] 370004 [unknown]
370005 [unknown] 370005 [unknown]
370006 [unknown] 370006 [unknown]
370007 [unknown] 370007 [unknown]
370008 [unknown] 370008 [unknown]
370009 [unknown] 370009 [unknown]
370010 [unknown] 370010 [unknown]
skipping to change at page 55, line 33 skipping to change at page 56, line 26
370018 [unknown] 370018 [unknown]
370019 [unknown] 370019 [unknown]
370020 [unknown] 370020 [unknown]
370021 [unknown] 370021 [unknown]
370022 [unknown] 370022 [unknown]
370023 [unknown] 370023 [unknown]
370024 [unknown] 370024 [unknown]
370025 [unknown] 370025 [unknown]
370026 [unknown] 370026 [unknown]
370027 [unknown] 370027 [unknown]
[available] 370028 - 379999 unassigned 370028 - 379999
380000 opensna 380000 opensna
380001 probenet 380001 probenet
380002 [unknown] 380002 [unknown]
380003 license 380003 license
380004 na.3com-remote 380004 na.3com-remote
380005 na.ntp 380005 na.ntp
380006 probeutil 380006 probeutil
380007 na.vlb 380007 na.vlb
380008 cds_mhs_agent 380008 cds_mhs_agent
380009 cds_x500_agent 380009 cds_x500_agent
skipping to change at page 56, line 10 skipping to change at page 56, line 51
380014 cds_mta_metrics_agent 380014 cds_mta_metrics_agent
380015 [unkonwn] 380015 [unkonwn]
380016 na.caple 380016 na.caple
380017 codexcapletrap 380017 codexcapletrap
Swiss Re 380018-380028 Swiss Re 380018-380028
380029 ncstat 380029 ncstat
380030 ncnfsstat 380030 ncnfsstat
380031 ftams 380031 ftams
380032 na.isotp 380032 na.isotp
380033 na.rfc1006 380033 na.rfc1006
[available] 380034 - 389999 unassigned 380034 - 389999
Epoch Systems 390000 - 390049 Epoch Systems 390000 - 390049
Quickturn Systems 390050 - 390065 Quickturn Systems 390050 - 390065
Team One Systems 390066 - 390075 Team One Systems 390066 - 390075
General Electric CRD 390076 - 390085 General Electric CRD 390076 - 390085
TSIG NFS subcommittee 390086 - 390089 TSIG NFS subcommittee 390086 - 390089
SoftLab ab 390090 - 390099 SoftLab ab 390090 - 390099
Legato Network Services 390100 - 390115 Legato Network Services 390100 - 390115
390116 cdsmonitor 390116 cdsmonitor
390117 cdslock 390117 cdslock
390118 cdslicense 390118 cdslicense
skipping to change at page 59, line 33 skipping to change at page 60, line 26
Unisys Govt Systems 395506 - 395519 Unisys Govt Systems 395506 - 395519
Bellcore 395520 - 395529 Bellcore 395520 - 395529
IBM 395530 - 395561 IBM 395530 - 395561
AT&T Network Services 395562 - 395571 AT&T Network Services 395562 - 395571
Data General 395572 - 395577 Data General 395572 - 395577
Swiss Bank Corp 395578 - 395597 Swiss Bank Corp 395578 - 395597
Swiss Bank Corp 395598 - 395637 Swiss Bank Corp 395598 - 395637
Novell 395638 - 395643 Novell 395638 - 395643
Computer Associates 395644 - 395650 Computer Associates 395644 - 395650
Omneon Video Networks 395651 - 395656 Omneon Video Networks 395651 - 395656
[available] 395657 - 395908 unassigned 395657 - 395908
UK Post Office 395909 - 395924 UK Post Office 395909 - 395924
AEROSPATIALE 395925 - 395944 AEROSPATIALE 395925 - 395944
Result d.o.o. 395945 - 395964 Result d.o.o. 395945 - 395964
DataTools, Inc. 395965 - 395980 DataTools, Inc. 395965 - 395980
CADIS, Inc. 395981 - 395990 CADIS, Inc. 395981 - 395990
Cummings Group, Inc. 395991 - 395994 Cummings Group, Inc. 395991 - 395994
Cadre Technologies 395995 - 395999 Cadre Technologies 395995 - 395999
American Airlines 396000 - 396999 American Airlines 396000 - 396999
Ericsson Telecom TM Div 397000 - 398023 Ericsson Telecom TM Div 397000 - 398023
IBM 398024 - 398028 IBM 398024 - 398028
Toshiba OME Works 398029 - 398033 Toshiba OME Works 398029 - 398033
TUSC Computer Systems 398034 - 398289 TUSC Computer Systems 398034 - 398289
AT&T 398290 - 398320 AT&T 398290 - 398320
Ontario Hydro 398321 - 398346 Ontario Hydro 398321 - 398346
Micrion Corporation 398347 - 398364 Micrion Corporation 398347 - 398364
[available] 398365 - 398591 unassigned 398365 - 398591
Pegasystems, Inc. 398592 - 399616 Pegasystems, Inc. 398592 - 399616
Spectra Securities Soft 399617 - 399850 Spectra Securities Soft 399617 - 399850
QualCom 399851 - 399866 QualCom 399851 - 399866
[available] 399867 - 399884 unassigned 399867 - 399884
Altris Software Ltd. 399885 - 399899 Altris Software Ltd. 399885 - 399899
ISO/IEC WG11 399900 - 399919 ISO/IEC WG11 399900 - 399919
Parametric Technology 399920 - 399949 Parametric Technology 399920 - 399949
Dolby Laboratories 399950 - 399981 Dolby Laboratories 399950 - 399981
[available] 399982 - 399991 unassigned 399982 - 399991
Xerox PARC 399992 - 399999 Xerox PARC 399992 - 399999
# #
Next Inc. 200100000 - 200199999 Next Inc. 200100000 - 200199999
Netwise (RPCtool) 200200000 Netwise (RPCtool) 200200000
Concurrent Computer Corp 200200001 - 200200007 Concurrent Computer Corp 200200001 - 200200007
AIM Technology 200300000 - 200399999 AIM Technology 200300000 - 200399999
TGV 200400000 - 200499999 TGV 200400000 - 200499999
# #
# Sun-assigned authentication flavor numbers # Sun-assigned authentication flavor numbers
# #
skipping to change at page 60, line 50 skipping to change at page 61, line 43
- ILU Unsecured Generic Identity - ILU Unsecured Generic Identity
# #
# Small blocks are assigned out of the 39xxxx series of numbers # Small blocks are assigned out of the 39xxxx series of numbers
# #
AUTH_SPNEGO 390000 AUTH_SPNEGO 390000
390000 - 390255 NFS 'pseudo' flavors for RPCSEC_GSS 390000 - 390255 NFS 'pseudo' flavors for RPCSEC_GSS
390003 - kerberos_v5 authentication, RFC 2623 390003 - kerberos_v5 authentication, RFC 2623
390004 - kerberos_v5 with data integrity, RFC 2623 390004 - kerberos_v5 with data integrity, RFC 2623
390005 - kerberos_v5 with data privacy, RFC 2623 390005 - kerberos_v5 with data privacy, RFC 2623
200000000 reserved 200000000 Reserved
200100000 NeXT Inc. 200100000 NeXT Inc.
18. Normative References Normative References
[RFC4506] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", RFC 4506, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2203]
Eisler, M., Chiu, A., Ling, L., "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification",
RFC 2203, September 1997
19. Informative References [RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.
[XRPC] [RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Birrell, A. D. & Nelson, B. J., "Implementing Remote Procedure Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, May 2006.
Calls", XEROX CSL-83-7, October 1983.
[VMTP] Informative References
Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol",
Preliminary Version 0.3, Stanford University, January 1987.
[DH] [DH] Diffie & Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography", IEEE
Diffie & Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography", IEEE Transactions Transactions on Information Theory IT-22, November 1976.
on Information Theory IT-22, November 1976.
[RFC768] [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, USC/Information August 1980.
Sciences Institute, August 1980.
[RFC793] [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet Program 793, September 1981.
Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[RFC1094] [RFC1094] Sun Microsystems, "NFS: Network File System Protocol
Sun Microsystems, Inc., "NFS: Network File System Protocol specification", RFC 1094, March 1989.
Specification", RFC 1094, March 1989.
[RFC1813] [RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., Staubach, P., "NFS Version 3 Protocol Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813, June 1995.
Specification", RFC 1813, June 1995.
[RFC1831] [RFC1831] Srinivasan, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
R. Srinivasan, "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Specification Version 2", RFC 1831, August 1995.
Version 2", RFC 1831, August 1995.
[RFC1833] [RFC1833] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2", RFC 1833, RFC 1833, August 1995.
August 1995.
[RFC2119] [RFC2623] Eisler, M., "NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement and the NFS Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5",
[RFC2623] RFC 2623, June 1999.
Eisler, M., "NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the NFS
Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5", RFC 2623, June 1999.
[RFC2695] [RFC2695] Chiu, A., "Authentication Mechanisms for ONC RPC", RFC
Chiu, A., "Authentication Mechanisms for ONC RPC", RFC 2695, 2695, September 1999.
September 1999.
[RFC2743] [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
Linn. J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
[RFC3530] [RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, C., Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System
Eisler, M., Noveck, D., "Network File System (NFS) version 4 (NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
[RFC5226] [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. May 2008.
20. Author's Address [VMTP] Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction
Protocol", Preliminary Version 0.3, Stanford University,
January 1987.
Address comments related to this memorandum to: [XRPC] Birrell, A. D. & B. J. Nelson, "Implementing Remote
Procedure Calls", XEROX CSL-83-7, October 1983.
nfsv4@ietf.org Author's Address
Robert Thurlow Robert Thurlow
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
500 Eldorado Boulevard, UBRM05-171 500 Eldorado Boulevard, UBRM05-171
Broomfield, CO 80021 Broomfield, CO 80021
Phone: 877-718-3419 Phone: 877-718-3419
E-mail: robert.thurlow@sun.com EMail: robert.thurlow@sun.com
 End of changes. 188 change blocks. 
428 lines changed or deleted 393 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/