Re: [alto] [ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang] Security Considerations (Issue #33)

Jensen Zhang <> Thu, 11 May 2023 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56AFC1F65D4 for <>; Wed, 10 May 2023 19:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDYnu4k-k6ie for <>; Wed, 10 May 2023 19:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF42C1DF986 for <>; Wed, 10 May 2023 19:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f475366522so10115615e9.1 for <>; Wed, 10 May 2023 19:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683771287; x=1686363287; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=P/2jVtVMgUNTEC8ENsL3XQdPQyDXo1ky/Y5h/7vFthI=; b=IQMR0lGmjf9lDxyKec5GGaGqyNCX98iy21a8CMlALq2avc7aiYwKeKfFSmEsLZx38x QUWzkaLLVqPd15QmmgY17dVGkmYEKgq5ZhA7HFzTvuB+tpn66ymc5ao2/2QnxBRZ9ecb zYjY2Xg72qUR8B2bEZav6slPqrtrcQSqn4ahrSEwh7+rMmIdpCjMZVFL6n+X4mBTJwPx S4gWLSbauaHqkVj9cHT7CpvC0gwNDKEGYCS+CqEk0kuVRjbef8TDcmcOkTMbVrNBmE+v PeeTpbbfOSLjZWE8xNoit4S/xbjEWgjQuJYfvS3dhMeCrTZ+71lYrrlI6NPkEXkupSxS V0ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683771287; x=1686363287; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=P/2jVtVMgUNTEC8ENsL3XQdPQyDXo1ky/Y5h/7vFthI=; b=ToXPSGoa5xZbU1J+cFiWLkm0SVa2cmeaqOCtHx5XNZfNrWqU45pd0KXhvNkLMbPxtv n8GUfGbvkS4uiodnqYH87S/Xje4bPyqrQ+0OLTS6bKQbyNoNZ7L25p+EtiPuPtkTlwe9 wBwW1utui/hj/QNtKutwzGpsrzVfAGpQA2xBw+61UYMT3A0BLOMsKVLh7Spz28ph63x9 pmdywwNgB2s1mLcQEvRqyxR+aQcAs1TjxOo1oS6ydi0MSUaD2zPGjBihKI9cUNQvGPaZ zQRnhdX56bNK8b0ZIGV0MHGyxNe8B7dcmUQT4MT/RI1Y606pd2g399VGeTdhSNH95m0I liTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzvm+YqWtyMipgdH0Tb9lGvRq+YBuIaLf6BJOjsXB1c8M/ALFib utDvwAdQvaK58q9/3uCmnxMdg9d2TIG/XEkCaXKR9S8x
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4/ysE3Xn7ZdXXr0WXCoc/4U9DXnPdTOTKVIChgCZt+aEzGL1kk8MOiRNht2aAYRbqM6aW0ctV1wJHWo4EHqnQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb91:0:b0:3f4:e70c:219f with SMTP id m17-20020a7bcb91000000b003f4e70c219fmr529518wmi.6.1683771287204; Wed, 10 May 2023 19:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jensen Zhang <>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 10:14:35 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Cc: ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang <>, IETF ALTO <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000074f6b205fb618d62"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] [ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang] Security Considerations (Issue #33)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 02:14:49 -0000

Hi Med,

Sorry for the late reply.

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:39 PM <> wrote:

> Hi Jensen,
> Thanks for drafting that text. I do still that some sensitive data nodes
> have to be listed. For example,
>    - Access to all authentication-related data nodes should be protected;
>    those that are inherited from other models have already
>    “nacm:default-deny-write” statement, while there is no such protected from
>    the data node that are added in the draft.
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree. But I think the only
authentication-related data nodes explicitly added in the current document
are "http-auth-client/user-id" and "https-auth-client/user-id" under
"auth-client". The leaf nodes referenced by them have already been
protected. Shall the leafrefs themselves be also protected?

>    - Consider the example of “poll-interval”: a misbehaving node can set
>    a very large value that would lead to maintaining stale data. Setting very
>    low values can also be considered as a misbehavior.
It is a very interesting point. I agree that the range of "poll-interval"
should be limited. But the accepted range may depend on the data sources
and implementations. It is hard to define a fixed range in the module. Do
you have any suggestions about it? Or we just explain this consideration
without any concrete solution?