<?xml version='1.0' encoding='ascii'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-cel-nfsv4-federated-fs-security-addendum-03" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="FedFS Security Addendum">Federated Filesystem Security Addendum </title>
    <author initials="C.E.L." surname="Lever" fullname="Charles Lever">
      <organization abbrev="Oracle">Oracle Corporation </organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1015 Granger Avenue</street>
          <city>Ann Arbor</city>
          <region>MI</region>
          <code>48104</code>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+1 734 274 2396</phone>
        <email>chuck.lever@oracle.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <area>Transport</area>
    <workgroup>NFSv4</workgroup>
    <keyword>Federated File Systems</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document addresses critical security-related items that are missing from existing FedFS proposed standards.  </t>
    </abstract>
    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  </t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" toc="default">
      <t>Requirements for federated filesystems are described in <xref target="RFC5716" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  Specification of the protocol used by administrators to configure fileservers and construct namespaces is provided in <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  Specification of the protocol allowing fileservers to store namespace information is provided in <xref target="RFC7532" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  </t>
      <t>These documents are now immutable.  However, some security-related concerns have arisen that should be addressed immediately rather than waiting for another version of these protocols to be ratified.  </t>
      <section title="Problem Statement: GSSAPI service name for ADMIN" toc="default">
        <t>After IESG review, the Security Considerations chapter of <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/> now specifically requires that implementations of this protocol support GSSAPI security mechanisms.  </t>
        <t>ADMIN protocol clients must use a service principal to establish a GSS context shared with an ADMIN server.  To construct the service principal, clients need to know a priori the protocol's GSSAPI service name.  The form of that service name is described in section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC2743" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  </t>
        <t>Also according to the final paragraph of section 4.1, requesting an addition to the "GSSAPI/Kerberos/SASL Service Names" registry requires a specification.  Because <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/> cannot be changed, a new specification must be provided.  </t>
      </section>
      <section title="Problem Statement: GSSAPI service name for NSDB" toc="default">
        <t><xref target="RFC7532" pageno="false" format="default"/> specifies that NSDB services must be based on the LDAP protocol <xref target="RFC4511" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  <xref target="RFC7532" pageno="false" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/> already specify a mechanism to protect NSDB connections using x.509 <xref target="RFC4513" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  </t>
        <t>In some cases, it is inconvenient for domain administrators to provide x.509 certificates for NSDBs.  One reason might be that administrators have no access to a public trusted Certificate Authority.  If a Kerberos TGT service is available locally, for example, that could be a more logical choice than x.509 for managing NSDB server identity.  </t>
        <t>The RPC <xref target="RFC5531" pageno="false" format="default"/> and LDAP protocols have GSSAPI in common.  The present document clarifies the use of existing SASL GSSAPI mechanisms when deployed with NSDBs.  It does not address how the ADMIN protocol can specify SASL GSSAPI in NSDB connection parameters.  </t>
      </section>
      <section title="Problem Statement: Compromised NSDBs" toc="default">
        <t>The FedFS ADMIN RPC protocol provides a mechanism for provisioning NSDBs on remote fileservers. The operations it provides are FEDFS_SET_NSDB_PARAMS, FEDFS_GET_NSDB_PARAMS, and FEDFS_GET_LIMITED_NSDB_PARAMS.  </t>
        <t>FEDFS_SET_NSDB_PARAMS specifies the name of an NSDB and the security mode to use when connecting to this NSDB.  The fileserver connects to an NSDB in order to resolve a FedFS junction.  The ADMIN protocol specification further says: </t>
        <t><list style="empty"><t>On success, this operation returns FEDFS_OK.  When the operation returns, the new connection parameters SHOULD be used for all subsequent LDAP connections to the given NSDB.  Existing connections MAY be terminated and re-established using the new connection parameters.  The connection parameters SHOULD be durable across fileserver reboots.  </t></list> </t>
        <t>There are two security modes defined in the protocol specification: FEDFS_SEC_NONE, which does not authenticate the LDAP server; and FEDFS_SEC_TLS, which uses START_TLS (RFC 4513) to authenticate the LDAP server.  </t>
        <t>When FEDFS_SEC_TLS is specified with the FEDFS_SET_NSDB_PARAMS operation, an x.509v3 certificate chain is also provided to the fileserver.  The fileserver uses the provided certificate to authenticate subsequent connections to this NSDB.  The FEDFS_SET_NSDB_PARAMS operation can change the connection security used by a fileserver to connect to a particular NSDB from NONE to TLS or TLS to NONE.  </t>
        <t>Over time, domain administrators add NSDB connection parameters to each of their fileservers to enable FedFS junction resolution. The specified NSDB may be the domain's own, or it might be an NSDB in a foreign domain.  </t>
        <t>Many junctions on multiple fileservers can be created that use a particular NSDB.  There is no way to find such junctions without an exhaustive search.  Since filesystem namespace topology can evolve arbitrarily over time, a recorded pathname of any junction is almost guaranteed to become stale.  </t>
        <t>Now suppose we have two FedFS domains: example.net and university.edu. Suppose university.edu fileservers have a number of junctions that refer to locations maintained by example.net, and thus university.net's fileservers are configured to resolve junctions on example.net's NSDB.  </t>
        <t>One day Mallory compromises example.net's NSDB, but the domain administrator there is on a long vacation.  The administrator at university.net discovers the compromise immediately, but has no control over the foreign NSDB and cannot create a fresh x.509 certificate or verify that the contents of the NSDB are unmolested.  The only choice is to find and remove every junction in the university.edu domain that contains the compromised NSDB.  </t>
        <t>If university.edu is using a good implementation of FedFS, the administrative tools it provides might allow an administrator to simply visit each of its fileservers and mark the example.net NSDB as compromised.  Any junction resolution that attempts to use that NSDB would fail, but all junctions remain in place.  When example.net's administrator gets back from holiday and cleans up the mess, the university.edu administrator can then update each of her fileservers with fresh connection parameters for that NSDB.  </t>
        <t>However, none of this can be done remotely using the FedFS ADMIN protocol. It does not have a mechanism for removing NSDB connection parameters or for fencing a compromised NSDB.  </t>
      </section>
      <section title="Scope Of This Document" toc="default">
        <t>This document specifies additional requirements for the FedFS ADMIN protocol specified in <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/>, which is a standards track specification.  </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section title="GSSAPI Service Name for the FedFS ADMIN protocol" toc="default">
      <t>Section 6 of <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/> requires a FedFS ADMIN server to support the RPCSEC_GSS framework <xref target="RFC2203" pageno="false" format="default"/>.  The present document specifies the GSSAPI service name, as described in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC2743" pageno="false" format="default"/>, to be used for the FedFS ADMIN protocol.  </t>
      <t>Regardless of what security mechanism under RPCSEC_GSS is in use, a FedFS ADMIN server MUST identify itself in GSSAPI via a GSS_C_NT_HOSTBASED_SERVICE name type.  GSS_C_NT_HOSTBASED_SERVICE names are of the form: </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      service@hostname
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>For the ADMIN protocol, the "service" element is </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      fedfs-admin
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>Implementations of security mechanisms will convert fedfs-admin@hostname to various different forms.  For Kerberos V5, the following form is RECOMMENDED: </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      fedfs-admin/hostname
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>This service name SHOULD NOT be used to authenticate other GSSAPI services.  </t>
    </section>
    <section title="GSSAPI Service Name for the FedFS NSDB protocol" toc="default">
      <t>Section 5.2.1.1 of <xref target="RFC4513" pageno="false" format="default"/> specifies the GSS service name for LDAP.  LDAP servers acting as NSDBs MUST use this service name, which is of the form: </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      service@hostname
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>When accessing an NSDB service, the "service" element is </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      ldap
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>Implementations of security mechanisms will convert ldap@hostname to various different forms.  For Kerberos V5, the following form is RECOMMENDED: </t>
      <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
        <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
      ldap/hostname
        </artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>FedFS-enabled file servers act as NSDB clients when resolving FedFS junctions.  In order to access NSDBs via SASL GSSAPI, such clients would first authenticate to a KDC. To avoid a requirement for human interaction (say, to enter a Kerberos password), such clients should utilize a key stored in a keytab.  Clients MAY use nfs/hostname, but MUST NOT use fedfs-admin/hostname.  </t>
      <section title="Cross-realm considerations" toc="default">
        <t>Note that the target NSDB's REALM is not specified above.  When authenticating a GSSAPI service, NSDB clients typically have a service name (in this case "ldap") and the fully qualified domain name of the NSDB server. The underlying LDAP client library will either: </t>
        <t><list style="numbers"><t>Find the server's REALM based on local configuration, or </t><t>Request a referral from the local KDC if the NSDB server's FQDN is not registered in the default REALM.  </t></list> </t>
        <t>Therefore, a pre-existing trust relationship must exist between the REALM of a FedFS-enabled file server and the REALMs containing foreign NSDBs containing junctions that file server wants to resolve.  In this instance, an x.509 certificate may be a preferrable approach.  </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Fencing Compromised NSDBs" toc="default">
      <t>An NSDB is considered "foreign" relative to a particular FedFS domain if that domain's administrator has no administrative access to that NSDB.  </t>
      <t>When a FedFS domain administrator is faced with a foreign NSDB that is compromised or otherwise unusable, and in the absense of an implementation-provided mechanism for fencing an NSDB, the administrator can fence that NSDB using the following technique.  </t>
      <t><list style="numbers"><t>The administrator locally generates a new certificate for the compromised foreign NSDB.  The certificate can be self-signed, or signed by the administrator's local certificate authority.  </t><t>The administrator distributes this certificate to all of her domain's fileservers using the FedFS ADMIN protocol or some other secure means.  The connection security for the foreign NSDB is set to FEDFS_SEC_TLS on each of the local domain's fileservers.  </t><t>The administrator requests fresh certificate material from the administrator of the foreign NSDB.  </t><t>When the threat has passed and the foreign NSDB is safe to use again, the administrator can distribute the new valid certificate material to her domain's fileservers.  </t></list> </t>
      <t>No change to the ADMIN protocol as specified in <xref target="RFC7533" pageno="false" format="default"/> is required to fence a compromised NSDB.  Step 2 guarantees that, on fileservers in the administrator's local FedFS domain, resolving a junction that references the compromised foreign NSDB will fail until updated certificate material is provided.  </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
      <t>When deploying FedFS, the use of security mechanisms that maintain the confidentiality of all network communications is recommended.  This includes the use of any pseudoflavor that supports the rpc_gss_svc_privacy service for the FedFS ADMIN protocol, and the use of TLS message encryption for the NSDB protocol.  </t>
      <t>When creating x.509 certificates for authenticating NSDBs, implementations should utilize keys that are as large as practical, especially if certificate lifetimes are long.  </t>
      <t>Operational security is further enhanced by ensuring that all hardware entropy sources are verified for cryptographic use.  This recommendation applies to the creation of x.509 certificate material, random-variant UUIDs, and handshake keys used to secure transports, for example.  </t>
      <t>Information stored in fedfsDescr and fedfsAnnotation attributes are readable by any unauthenticated user of an NSDB, and therefore should contain no sensitive information.  </t>
    </section>
    <section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default">
      <t>In accordance with Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC2743" pageno="false" format="default"/>, the service name "fedfs-admin" will be registered in the GSSAPI Service Name registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gssapi-service-names/ gssapi-service-names.xml </t>
      <t>The new entry should reference the present document as the specification.  </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Acknowledgements" toc="default">
      <t>The author of this document gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Simo Sorce, Nico Williams, Robert Thurlow, Spencer Shepler, Tom Haynes, and David Noveck.  </t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="Scott Bradner">
            <organization>Harvard University</organization>
            <address>
              <postal>
                <street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
                <street>Cambridge</street>
                <street>MA 02138</street>
              </postal>
              <phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
              <email>sob@harvard.edu</email>
            </address>
          </author>
          <date year="1997" month="March"/>
          <area>General</area>
          <keyword>keyword</keyword>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: <list><t>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 RFC 2119.  </t></list></t>
            <t>Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used.  </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="4723" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt"/>
        <format type="HTML" octets="17491" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html"/>
        <format type="XML" octets="5777" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2203">
        <front>
          <title>RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification</title>
          <author initials="M." surname="Eisler" fullname="Michael Eisler">
            <organization>Sun Microsystems, Inc.</organization>
            <address>
              <postal>
                <street>M/S UCOS03</street>
                <street>2550 Garcia Avenue</street>
                <street>Mountain View</street>
                <street>CA 94043</street>
              </postal>
              <phone>+1 (719) 599-9026</phone>
              <email>mre@eng.sun.com</email>
            </address>
          </author>
          <author initials="A." surname="Chiu" fullname="Alex Chiu">
            <organization>Sun Microsystems, Inc.</organization>
            <address>
              <postal>
                <street>M/S UMPK17-203</street>
                <street>2550 Garcia Avenue</street>
                <street>Mountain View</street>
                <street>CA 94043</street>
              </postal>
              <phone>+1 (415) 786-6465</phone>
              <email>hacker@eng.sun.com</email>
            </address>
          </author>
          <author initials="L." surname="Ling" fullname="Lin Ling">
            <organization>Sun Microsystems, Inc.</organization>
            <address>
              <postal>
                <street>M/S UMPK17-201</street>
                <street>2550 Garcia Avenue</street>
                <street>Mountain View</street>
                <street>CA 94043</street>
              </postal>
              <phone>+1 (415) 786-5084</phone>
              <email>lling@eng.sun.com</email>
            </address>
          </author>
          <date year="1997" month="September"/>
          <area>Security</area>
          <keyword>generic security service</keyword>
          <keyword>remote procedure call</keyword>
          <keyword>security</keyword>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo describes an ONC/RPC security flavor that allows RPC protocols to access the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface (referred to henceforth as GSS-API).  </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2203"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="50937" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2203.txt"/>
        <format type="HTML" octets="64234" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2203.html"/>
        <format type="XML" octets="50205" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2203.xml"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2743">
        <front>
          <title abbrev="GSS-API">Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1</title>
          <author initials="J." surname="Linn" fullname="John Linn">
            <organization>RSA Laboratories</organization>
            <address>
              <postal>
                <street>20 Crosby Drive</street>
                <city>Bedford</city>
                <region>MA</region>
                <code>01730</code>
                <country>US</country>
              </postal>
              <phone>+1 781 687 7817</phone>
              <email>jlinn@rsasecurity.com</email>
            </address>
          </author>
          <date year="2000" month="January"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API), Version 2, as defined in, provides security services to callers in a generic fashion, supportable with a range of underlying mechanisms and technologies and hence allowing source-level portability of applications to different environments. This specification defines GSS-API services and primitives at a level independent of underlying mechanism and programming language environment, and is to be complemented by other, related specifications:</t>
            <t>documents defining specific parameter bindings for particular language environments</t>
            <t>documents defining token formats, protocols, and procedures to be implemented in order to realize GSS-API services atop particular security mechanisms</t>
            <t>This memo obsoletesmaking specific, incremental changes in response to implementation experience and liaison requests. It is intended, therefore, that this memo or a successor version thereto will become the basis for subsequent progression of the GSS-API specification on the standards track.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2743"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="229418" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2743.txt"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4511">
        <front>
          <title>Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol</title>
          <author initials="J." surname="Sermersheim" fullname="J. Sermersheim">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2006" month="June"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the protocol elements, along with their semantics and encodings, of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).  LDAP provides access to distributed directory services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models.  These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP). [STANDARDS TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4511"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="150116" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc4511.txt"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4513">
        <front>
          <title>Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms</title>
          <author initials="R." surname="Harrison" fullname="R. Harrison">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2006" month="June"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes authentication methods and security mechanisms of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document details establishment of Transport Layer Security (TLS) using the StartTLS operation.&lt;/t&gt;&lt;t&gt; This document details the simple Bind authentication method including anonymous, unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms and the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Bind authentication method including the EXTERNAL mechanism.&lt;/t&gt;&lt;t&gt; This document discusses various authentication and authorization states through which a session to an LDAP server may pass and the actions that trigger these state changes.&lt;/t&gt;&lt;t&gt; This document, together with other documents in the LDAP Technical Specification (see Section 1 of the specification's road map), obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2829, and RFC 2830. [STANDARDS TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4513"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="80546" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc4513.txt"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5531">
        <front>
          <title>RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2</title>
          <author initials="R." surname="Thurlow" fullname="R. Thurlow">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2009" month="May"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the Open Network Computing (ONC) Remote Procedure Call (RPC) version 2 protocol as it is currently deployed and accepted.  This document obsoletes RFC 1831. [STANDARDS TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5531"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="161720" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc5531.txt"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7532">
        <front>
          <title>Namespace Database (NSDB) Protocol for Federated File Systems</title>
          <author initials="J." surname="Lentini" fullname="J. Lentini">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="R." surname="Tewari" fullname="R. Tewari">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="C." surname="Lever" fullname="C. Lever">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2015" month="March"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes a file system federation protocol that enables file access and namespace traversal across collections of independently administered fileservers.  The protocol specifies a set of interfaces by which fileservers with different administrators can form a fileserver federation that provides a namespace composed of the file systems physically hosted on and exported by the constituent fileservers.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7532"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="127373" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7532.txt"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7533">
        <front>
          <title>Administration Protocol for Federated File Systems</title>
          <author initials="J." surname="Lentini" fullname="J. Lentini">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="R." surname="Tewari" fullname="R. Tewari">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="C." surname="Lever" fullname="C. Lever">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2015" month="March"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the administration protocol for a federated file system (FedFS) that enables file access and namespace traversal across collections of independently administered fileservers.  The protocol specifies a set of interfaces by which fileservers with different administrators can form a fileserver federation that provides a namespace composed of the file systems physically hosted on and exported by the constituent fileservers.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7533"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="76429" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7533.txt"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
      <reference anchor="RFC5716">
        <front>
          <title>Requirements for Federated File Systems</title>
          <author initials="J." surname="Lentini" fullname="J. Lentini">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="C." surname="Everhart" fullname="C. Everhart">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="D." surname="Ellard" fullname="D. Ellard">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="R." surname="Tewari" fullname="R. Tewari">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="M." surname="Naik" fullname="M. Naik">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2010" month="January"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes and lists the functional requirements of a federated file system and defines related terms.  This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5716"/>
        <format type="TXT" octets="58051" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5716.txt"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
