Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:

>> On Apr 22, 2015:5:51 PM, at 5:51 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2015 21:20, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: Discuss
>>>>
>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
>>>> all
>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
>>>> this
>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please refer to 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> [edited to fix missing word]
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Stephen's comments that the security considerations 
>>>> are
>>>> sorely lacking. I understand his reasoning for not asking the group 
>>>> to do
>>>> considerably more work at this point in the process. But I'd like 
>>>> to see
>>>> at least an explicit mention that power management as described in 
>>>> some
>>>> of the use cases in this draft may have significant privacy
>>>> considerations--even if that mention takes the form of "We haven't 
>>>> fully
>>>> analyzed privacy issues, and leave that work to a follow on 
>>>> effort."
>>> The question is: can we rely on the security considerations of RFC 
>>> 7326, RFC 7460, and RFC 7461?
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal
>>> sensitive information about individuals' activities and habits.
>>> Implementors of this specification should use appropriate privacy
>>> protections as discussed in Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of
>>> individuals and homes should only occur with proper authorization.
>>
>> It would help if the security considerations in the applicability 
>> statement referenced those docs :-) Even so, references scoped to the 
>> MIBs are not completely satisfying when the draft says it is equally 
>> applicable to things like YANG and NETCONF.
>>
>> (By the way, it looks like the references to 7460 and 7461 elsewhere 
>> in the draft still point to outdated drafts.)
>>
>>>
>>> Or asked differently: should an applicability statement document 
>>> review and discuss the security considerations of each of the use 
>>> cases mentioned?
>>
>> That would be nice--really, each use case may have different privacy 
>> issues. But I agree with Stephen that it's kind of late to ask the WG 
>> to analyze those.
>>
>> Would you consider adding something to the effect of the following to 
>> the security considerations?
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power 
>> monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. 
>> Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may 
>> have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this 
>> document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to 
>> each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. “
>
> 	This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only 
> question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP 
> MIBs.

I suggested mentioning Yang here because section 1.1 mentioned that the 
information model was equally applicable to non-SNMP approaches such as 
YANG and NETCOMF. I'd be willing to entertain arguments that such things 
are not really applications of this spec, i.e. I won't complain if you 
drop that sentence.

>
> 	Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well?
>
> 	—Tom