Re: [CCAMP] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Fri, 18 May 2018 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B23126DEE; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3jkyTSUbXnN; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCAA126D05; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c9-v6so4673295iob.12; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z6bvZ5h9cmf2cjLP34pLwFxhX17EHlRdiIvjnYYk8F4=; b=P8hWwBLY1X/PMpHLvQBNVzhJYdHepYPwyH0RbLnEDwLfnjjFZJzpv+HrUi4EMEvYDT 0Z5lRIAVHNDm9YHokmsJ7cQ9aZo8f/muCHJR+xhqfVwrkH7DhpUlomCo+ToufPK6Y7HP uk+jG+OsRc3D9B270hL11YTt1lJvZeiVuOK9ndifsT/DtKKnnT1UyUw8f7J7GaDp20PN 95Vas3oy4DCRD3PyOhzxLfuhSjqHrLIDWdx/Xnq2L6aNjRrCdU6huOpGJlGRTHJbCo6s eZY7P2WepFkhDU+S1Myx3pQvN5ACakNR9vuMoH5GNFYh8XHsRjk1CqLnIsfwbG+i6Sdo HauA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z6bvZ5h9cmf2cjLP34pLwFxhX17EHlRdiIvjnYYk8F4=; b=YCFh8StS0i+oQnfOB/KZcC1sOeeR3ydfqWaKpeYhzMy8/6SPXlmLFMQz9uFY0UsWGu gAObPzKUMtLHK+mPLpscYgBgknuSrBxorl9zzehCYFUdu1tNuGb7wANIDwqH/EhpLcYf r41ikOnZKkA9QOtvXQYDI144U2orFx1nLM8/OjDFfTQzSc29Pre/iV5qCi8pV/WLXBgy inZ+YSLQeS+SzLZsRe4dX3IOiAJUDou+DzNfFKoC958NtozMVlewIXp2j4R4TlG8yiHL bN83DnlAyd6Y84xwTKOt5twQINn0LkiuwkvbaS7DOC4JvEgaZD1oWaYtzOYlv/G7zpPK PsBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcr+3w7GFG7fGnykWySgqkvHyOphOciT7XWAtlE0bHj30OLKEgT rbUaG+Q2pi96qoXDqT/Gl3LsvrXsWTRVK/wQfoU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoQZoHGuxkP5t1XIz50tZcvXBasQWQqvBBN1mmwZcsxbzLJ6mv3pOTEG8l3d7KyirwNJ5yjCKmznluRdycjcao=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:82a0:: with SMTP id m32-v6mr9114990ioi.56.1526617793861; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a02:2a02:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCF004E74@dggema521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAFOuuo7PmeTWMYnetwi_8d-11UZmkPXx7WSje-coH_=ROfr9bA@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB3167FAE7BD03E6751047B60DF09B0@VI1PR07MB3167.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCF004E74@dggema521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 21:29:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo6XWv8NnWN2SDXDFJ-6FZVmvC-T8i8k+M3wXb2aARfqBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f9df5056c73674d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-uG-HW6_U0ZnXCYhzoPmt-V3spk>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 04:29:58 -0000

Thank you!  Though what you're suggesting is awkward English.

Perhaps "We note that the distinction between NMS and SDN is not all that
clear, and the two are evolving to be more and more similar." could replace
the first sentence.  I'm really not sure what you meant by "evolving toward
a component", so perhaps I'm not capturing what you are intending to say.


Radia

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Yemin (Amy) <amy.yemin@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Radia,
>
>
>
> We just updated the draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/.
>
> Your comments are addressed in the latest version.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Amy
>
> *From:* Yemin (Amy)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:07 PM
> *To:* 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; Radia
> Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-
> framework.all@tools.ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; secdir@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
>
>
>
> Hi Radia,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
>
>
> Regarding the NMS and SDN, as Daniele suggested, we will add the following
> text in section 3:
>
> “It's noted that there's idea that the NMS and SDN are evolving towards a
> component, and the distinction between them is quite vague. Another fact is
> that there is still plenty of networks where NMS is still considered as the
> implementation of the management plane, while SDN is considered as the
> centralization of the control plane. They are still kept as separate
> component.”
>
>
>
> Regarding the security considerations, yes, this draft doesn’t specify the
> parameters.
>
> There’s another draft draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang, where the security
> consideration is addressed as you suggested.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Amy
>
> *From:* Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
> <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2018 5:46 PM
> *To:* Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-
> framework.all@tools.ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; secdir@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
>
>
>
> Hi Radia,
>
>
>
> let me reply on behalf of the authors. First of all many thanks for your
> review.
>
>
>
> Regarding your question about traditional NMS vs SDN I agree with you on
> the fact that they are evolving towards a common component and the
> distinction is quite blurry, but there is still plenty of networks where
> NMS is still considered as the implementation of the management plane while
> SDN the centralization of the control plane and they are still kept as
> separate things.
>
>
>
> Hence, since the authors speak about “traditional” NMS and SDN I would
> tend to allow for the distinction to be kept. If you prefer a note speaking
> about the convergence of the two things can be added.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Daniele  (ccamp co-chair)
>
>
>
> *From:* Radia Perlman [mailto:radiaperlman@gmail.com
> <radiaperlman@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* lunedì 7 maggio 2018 08:55
> *To:* draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework.all@tools.ietf.org; The IESG <
> iesg@ietf.org>; secdir@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
>
>
>
> Sorry...resending because I mistyped the author address.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Radia Perlman* <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:48 PM
> Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
> To: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <
> iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
>
> Summary:  No security issues found, but I do have questions, and there are
> editing glitches
>
>
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
>
>
> This document describes the management interface for microwave radio links.
>
> It advocates (correctly, I believe) that such an interface should be
> extensible to provide for vendor-specific features.
>
>
>
> I don't understand the difference between a "a traditional network
> management system" and SDN.  Perhaps it is not the job of this document to
> clearly make the distinction, and I suspect there is no real
> distinction...setting parameters (traditional network management) is a way
> of "programming" an interface ("SDN").
>
>
>
> This document could use an editing pass for glitches, but these glitches
> do not impact its readability.
>
>
>
> The glitches consist  mostly of leaving out little words like "of" in the
> following sentence.
>
> "The adoption of an SDN framework for management and
>
>    control the microwave interface is one of the key applications for
>
>    this work."
>
>
>
> The security considerations say that they assume a secure transport layer
> (authenticated, probably encryption isn't necessary) for communication.
> Other than that, perhaps, there might be security considerations for
> inadvertently setting parameters incorrectly, or maliciously by a trusted
> administrator.  But this document does not specify the specific parameters
> to be managed, just a general framework.
>
>
>
> Radia
>
>
>
>
>