Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Tue, 08 September 2020 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE853A127C; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6Nd0IuwHS5JQ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 458B73A1293; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n25so9023421ljj.4; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 06:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HkxWQMJl5wxZbxXDqNI0ZDc7luERR6Up1KyTWHDKJF0=; b=LC9Ax2f6eur/UAcy+xZ4DQEvZHDHmq1//oOtW7C8pVoiCeYnltuel9976zwRnlNNLt 51lxcyozlVZk2xEX+KDKHyDnl5g7e722NLNEpFX7/w720tSh/naSZfHPEfDWmehZzOlX OLAFgfuKcvYYqGMNPUKn8qJJjbyXgt79H062PG4KnaBepOpLRl9EQorLpVm8YRNgohhl NP9rfXRJRZubEnLSlrdMhDrUrCQQejInIkuyWZb7AFOyPaO3gnlwhk+I5gs/Dl3TcfkK iDUbTgWCst41n/BwaC15Ypi2fEB+Gd25n5J22bqgCXKQ4fpiGzZMdBvN6T9pHoZfQRuc T+Qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HkxWQMJl5wxZbxXDqNI0ZDc7luERR6Up1KyTWHDKJF0=; b=IzkqPhx1sBSrCGBI382jiGyTb/wNLeYAHOV0Go8TMh1jJ1tEsmMuvvHk0GXqlzaQHo lLZtPcw+IpesLiemPIhNY3fsgkIq6veZ39HkGMivZDPrvz86MYWSnUecCcwe2N79nf9s FrpIUM5A4Zi3Cs+Oc9D77gAAveUHfmv2czKo5osG1jfQmgDWq40tzWtYwJJnS6W5uyvf pC58PTiASRn1IgVPkB2jHt7NTM66W6cME+J8q30sZRF8kgFDVgSVWU3PYV8aKy47OBvT eqw4oGEtoNeHwKMTdXDGx4lJrU+j2MszWOhA99sEg6jyz3vTUa2W4zxXuMKPcExesz6I kNWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530NDvQ1llrrASLzFjMYYQHxE6KVgT4BCBYH9iMSObOWwf3Gaopm LFQVg5CBlSNGvjAcS/h5ldN9Z5TMJhjclgNH9yQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIOFY5fLuYnBypLcBcDHv2CESKxB+H1cqMdMKIpLdxOjr1qmkJKSxynSvkXhUVBRJ7apzWBeIKe/hXVZMBKa4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:106f:: with SMTP id y15mr13216180ljm.170.1599570417877; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157349122063.7571.1978842562243958252@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPK2Dexgk81Saufei3z67E4XZg=LLra1HdTUWU-kU33Pj_o+eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DeyWEzR6Qy6HPURnKp481mH=y+3O2xpLBS9kLc1MPbcjBg@mail.gmail.com> <44A4E4A8-AF9A-47AF-A31A-8AAACAF0A6BA@tail-f.com> <CAPK2Dey7GzzAWh8AeKA8e5Ng8skxZBf1SYKGLyuatpZDJ+YPWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DewR2CXNBFaiN_ZoAT0RzLmswC2JD9xx51Xh7W_zRU8D7Q@mail.gmail.com> <9DEEFD92-5DC6-4E30-A706-20EBAFDAFC2D@tail-f.com> <CAPK2Dex3Q-TYm2_GJ5nYoSH5HYUiHNDWbq8HfAcw+7z4ovVnKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPK2Dex3Q-TYm2_GJ5nYoSH5HYUiHNDWbq8HfAcw+7z4ovVnKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 22:06:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dewf8y4Rh4XyEnhL_z2VzM49KZ2zXSOHFOMOk8zUUGumeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>
Cc: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d073f05aecd02d0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/APigDCM_AiefaovJu1qUvuMioxU>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:07:08 -0000
Hi Jan, Could you speak up your voice on this revision? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-12 If this version is fine with you, please proceed with the update of the YANG review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:39 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jan, > I have addressed all your comments and submitted the revised draft: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-10 > > > I attach the revision letter to explain how I have addressed your comments. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:00 AM Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com> wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> Good work with the module, and sorry for the slow response. I have been >> OOO. I read through this again today, and I have some comments, if you are >> interested. I guess this is not part of any formal review any more. >> >> >> o Figure 1: Not sure I understand what the arrow from "Consumer-Facing >> Interface Information Model" ---> "Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model" >> means, but it probably does no harm. >> >> o Figure 5: The tree diagram leafref paths are strange (e.g. >> -> /../../user-group/name) >> >> o Figure 7, figure 12: The UML diagram cardinality is given as "1..n" in >> several places. In the actual YANG, the cardinality is "0..n" >> >> o Section 5: The endpoint groups are mapped to a single IP or IP range. >> Is that sufficient for your use cases? Also, much of this information re IP >> addresses for users, devices and geo locations in the world are probably >> available in other systems with most network operators. Is it advisable to >> duplicate that information here? Sounds difficult to keep all this >> information in sync. >> >> o Section 6: Threat signatures and content patterns can be configured >> here. Is the expectation that the I2NSF client (operator?) configures these >> patterns, and the I2NSF server communicates these patterns to the threat >> feed servers, as a sort of controller? How this part of the model would be >> used is not clear to me. >> >> o Section 9: The examples should use prefixed identity names. For example >> <protocol>http</protocol> should be >> <protocol>i2nsf-cfi:http</protocol> >> and >> <day>monday</day> should be <day>i2nsf-cfi:monday</day> >> >> o Section 9.2 and 9.3: Even though the examples text talks about the >> value of "destination", no such tag is actually present in the XML. >> >> >> Then in the YANG module itself: >> >> o In ip-ranges like container range-ipv4-address, what happens if either >> of start- or end- address is omitted? Maybe explain in the description, or >> make both leafs mandatory? >> >> o In container period there are several when-expressions that mean >> something else than you think: >> container period{ >> when >> >> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/rules/rule/event/frequency!='only-once'"; >> By using an abosolute path like this, the XPath expression looks for >> matching instances across all rules. This means this expression is true as >> soon as there is at least one rule with a frequency != 'only-once'. There >> are several other when expressions here with the same problem. What I think >> you mean is this: >> container period{ >> when "../../frequency!='only-once'"; >> This expression looks only at the frequency leaf in the same rule >> instance as the period container is in. The other when expressions can be >> fixed in a similar way. >> >> o leaf frequency: What happens if this leaf is set to weekly and no day >> is specified? Or monthly, etc? One way of modeling this to avoid the >> problem is to make the leaf-list day, leaf-list date, leaf-list month etc a >> choice, so that the frequency is implicit by configuring a day, date or >> month. If none of them are set, that would mean only-once. Just a thought. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> /jan >> >> >> On 13 Jul 2020, at 14:20, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jan, >> I have uploaded the revised draft into the IETF repository: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-09 >> >> >> I attach the revision letter, too. >> >> Could you review the draft and complete your YANG review if you are >> satisfied with the revision? >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:44 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan and Tom, >>> I have revised our I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface (CFI) Data Model >>> Draft according to both your comments. >>> >>> Jan, >>> I attach the revised draft and the revision letter to explain how I have >>> reflected your comments one by one. >>> >>> Tom, >>> the references to RFC inside our YANG module cannot be cited in my I-D >>> XML file, so I cannot include them >>> in Normative References. >>> >>> Also, the choice of the prefix is i2nsf-cfi. >>> >>> I put "Note: This section is informative" for Sections 7 and 10, which >>> include XML configuration examples. >>> >>> If you have further comments, please let me know by July 12, 2020, in >>> EST. >>> If possible, I want to post this revision on July 13, 2020 after >>> reflecting your further comments on the revision. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul, >>>> >>>> Thank you for all your work with the module, and for the reminder for >>>> me to verify all the changes. >>>> >>>> I am afraid I think the module is still not ready for last call, even >>>> if it is better shape than ever thanks to your efforts. I went through the >>>> module from top to bottom, so this is sorted in order of appearance. >>>> >>>> Line 107-204: The following identities are declared in the module, but >>>> never referenced. They should either have a common base with something, or >>>> be referenced somewhere. If not, why are they defined here? They currently >>>> serve no purpose in this YANG module. >>>> identity ddos { >>>> identity enforce-type { >>>> identity admin { >>>> identity time { >>>> >>>> Line 377: Defining a custom date-and-time type seems odd. You should >>>> probably use one that has already been defined >>>> typedef date-and-time { >>>> >>>> Line 513: The leaf represents the name of a user, but the format is >>>> undefined. What should be the format for the string value? How would a user >>>> know what to configure here? Email addresses? If implementation dependent, >>>> say so. >>>> leaf name { >>>> type string; >>>> description >>>> "This represents the name of a user."; >>>> >>>> Line 518: If no IP address information is specified for the user-group, >>>> what happens then? Is the user access accepted, rejected, or something else? >>>> uses ip-address-info; >>>> >>>> Line 658: Key leaf declared mandatory. All keys are mandatory, so >>>> mandatory is not needed on this leaf. >>>> leaf policy-name { >>>> type string; >>>> mandatory true; >>>> >>>> Line 664: Users mentioned in the owners-ref should have full CRUD >>>> privileges to the policy. But what about everyone else? Should they have >>>> R(ead) privileges? Can anyone create new policies? If not, who can? If >>>> someone creates a policy, but does not mention his own name among owners >>>> (e.g. misspells or does not get the format right), he will not be able to >>>> modify or remove the policy. If no owner is mentioned, then noone can. >>>> uses owners-ref; >>>> >>>> Line 673: Key leaf declared mandatory. All keys are mandatory, so >>>> mandatory is not needed on this leaf. >>>> leaf rule-name { >>>> type string; >>>> mandatory true; >>>> >>>> Line 682: Users mentioned in the owners-ref should have full CRUD >>>> privileges to the rule. But what about everyone else? Should they have >>>> R(ead) privileges? Can anyone create new rules, or only those that have >>>> full CRUD privileges for the policy? If someone creates a rule, but does >>>> not mention his own name among owners (e.g. misspells or does not get the >>>> format right), he will not be able to modify or remove the rule. >>>> uses owners-ref; >>>> >>>> Line 697: Choice enforce-type has a description that I can't >>>> understand. What does this mean? >>>> choice enforce-type { >>>> description >>>> "There are two different enforcement types; >>>> admin, and time. >>>> It cannot be allowed to configure >>>> admin=='time' or enforce-time=='admin'."; >>>> >>>> Line 703: In case of enforce-type admin (whatever that means), a string >>>> value needs to be configured. What are the valid values for this leaf? >>>> case enforce-admin { >>>> leaf admin { >>>> type string; >>>> description >>>> "This represents the enforcement type >>>> based on admin's decision."; >>>> >>>> Line 711: In case of enforce-type time, three times can be configured. >>>> What is the relation between enforce-time, and the other two (begin-time, >>>> end-time)? >>>> case time { >>>> container time-information { >>>> description >>>> "The begin-time and end-time information >>>> when the security rule should be applied."; >>>> leaf enforce-time { >>>> type date-and-time; >>>> description >>>> "The enforcement type is time-enforced."; >>>> } >>>> leaf begin-time { >>>> type date-and-time; >>>> description >>>> "This is start time for time zone"; >>>> } >>>> leaf end-time { >>>> type date-and-time; >>>> description >>>> "This is end time for time zone"; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Furthermore, the locally defined date-and-time type used includes both >>>> a date and time, which seems to be at odds with the example configurations >>>> in the draft. Example 9.2: >>>> <rules> >>>> <rule> >>>> <rule-name>block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours</rule-name> >>>> <event> >>>> <time-information> >>>> <begin-time>2020-03-11T09:00:00.00Z</begin-time> >>>> <end-time>2020-03-11T18:00:00.00Z</end-time> >>>> >>>> In the example, the rule-name "block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours >>>> " suggests that the begin-time and end-time should be times of day between >>>> which the policy should be enforced. E.g. every day between 9.00 and 18.00. >>>> If that is a valid use case, using a time type with a date doesn't make >>>> much sense. In the context of the policy that repeats "daily", how should >>>> the start date-and-time value "2020-03-11T09:00:00.00Z " be interpreted? >>>> What if it was "monthly"? >>>> >>>> Line 736: In the frequency leaf, the enumeration value only-once is for >>>> rules that don't repeat. But how long do they apply? A single packet? A >>>> single time the rule is triggered? How does a user know if the rule is >>>> still in effect, i.e. if the "once" has happened or not? >>>> enum only-once { >>>> >>>> Line 835: Maybe it's just my limited understanding of how threat-feeds >>>> work, but I wonder i this construct with source and destinations for threat >>>> feeds is meaningful? >>>> container threat-feed-condition { >>>> description >>>> "The condition based on the threat-feed information."; >>>> leaf-list source { >>>> type leafref { >>>> path >>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/threat-preventions/threat-feed-list/name"; >>>> } >>>> description >>>> "Describes the threat-feed condition source."; >>>> } >>>> leaf dest-target { >>>> type leafref { >>>> path >>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/threat-preventions/threat-feed-list/name"; >>>> } >>>> description >>>> "Describes the threat-feed condition destination."; >>>> >>>> Line 920: Location groups can be configured, but there seems to be no >>>> references to them. How are they supposed to be used? >>>> list location-group{ >>>> key "name"; >>>> uses location-group; >>>> >>>> Line 931: Regarding point 16.1 in your revision letter, you say "We >>>> think list type of threat-feed-list can be configured more than one feed of >>>> the same type". I'm afraid that is not the case with the current YANG >>>> model. If you do wish to allow more than one threat-feed-list for the same >>>> threat-feed-type, you need to add an additional key to your >>>> threat-feed-list. >>>> list threat-feed-list { >>>> key "name"; >>>> description >>>> "There can be a single or multiple number of >>>> threat-feeds."; >>>> uses threat-feed-info; >>>> >>>> ... >>>> grouping threat-feed-info { >>>> description >>>> "This is the grouping for the threat-feed-list"; >>>> leaf name { >>>> type identityref { >>>> base threat-feed-type; >>>> >>>> >>>> Generally, the indentation in the module is much improved. Some lines >>>> are still a bit off, however, so I would recommend using a tool that >>>> indents consistently. >>>> >>>> Generally, I also wonder whether there has been any discussion with >>>> implementors around the admin security model proposed here. As noted >>>> before, it's a bit different from everything else I have seen. Is it well >>>> thought through? Do implementors feel this is doable and user friendly? >>>> Currently there are no examples involving owner. Perhaps an example that >>>> sheds some light over how different users create, modify and see the >>>> various rules would shed some light over this. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> /jan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2020, at 18:41, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jan, >>>> Could you update the state of YANGDOCTORS Last Call Review on >>>> I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model if the updates are >>>> fine to you? >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ >>>> >>>> I think your comments are all addressed in this version. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:15 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >>>> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>> We authors have addressed your comments with the revision: >>>>> >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-08 >>>>> >>>>> I attach a revision letter to explain how to respond to your comments. >>>>> >>>>> If you have further comments, please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:53 AM Jan Lindblad via Datatracker < >>>>> noreply@ietf.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Reviewer: Jan Lindblad >>>>>> Review result: Almost Ready >>>>>> >>>>>> This is my YD review of >>>>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07. I >>>>>> have previously reviewed the -05 revision (~end June). I find the new >>>>>> revision >>>>>> much improved, but still with much to discuss. I will call this >>>>>> "almost ready". >>>>>> >>>>>> Generally speaking, I think the YANG module lacks the precision and >>>>>> descriptions needed to foster interoperability. The examples at the >>>>>> end are >>>>>> very enlightening however, and compensate for much of that, but their >>>>>> informal >>>>>> nature can never replace proper YANG. The module usage needs to be >>>>>> mostly clear >>>>>> from the module itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> The management access control model proposed here is, even with its >>>>>> latest >>>>>> adaptation towards NACM, is still quite different from NACM author's >>>>>> original >>>>>> ideas. I will therefore bring this use case up in the NETMOD WG for >>>>>> discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Network access control principles >>>>>> >>>>>> Network access control is about which users are able to use the >>>>>> network being >>>>>> managed, for example connect to facebook. The purpose of the NSF >>>>>> module is to >>>>>> control this access. This version of the YANG module is now based on >>>>>> a list of >>>>>> policies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Each policy has a list of rules. Each rule has an event -- condition >>>>>> -- action >>>>>> triplet. This resembles traditional firewall management, which is a >>>>>> good thing, >>>>>> because that concept is stable and much tried. This allows operators >>>>>> to create >>>>>> lists of rules in this style: >>>>>> >>>>>> if pkt.x == 1: drop // Rule 1 >>>>>> elif pkt.y > 2: alert // Rule 2 >>>>>> elif pkt.z == 10: pass // Rule 3 >>>>>> else: drop // Rule 4 >>>>>> >>>>>> This pattern relies heavily on the ability to control the order of >>>>>> the rules. >>>>>> The current model relies on the alphabetical sorting of names rules >>>>>> for the >>>>>> ordering. The YANG trick I would recommend to give operators the >>>>>> ability to >>>>>> insert and move rules as they wish is to add ordered-by user on the >>>>>> list: >>>>>> >>>>>> list rule { >>>>>> ordered-by user; // <== Add this line >>>>>> leaf rule-name { >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing is said about what the system should do in case policies >>>>>> conflict. What >>>>>> if one policy says pass, the other drop for the same packet? Please >>>>>> clarify. >>>>>> What should happen to packets that do not match any of the policies? >>>>>> >>>>>> This module also assumes that all users in the operator's >>>>>> organization are >>>>>> listed in one or more NACM groups (e.g. "employees"). That wasn't >>>>>> really the >>>>>> NACM authors' original intent. Even if this could be made to work >>>>>> maybe, there >>>>>> is no strong reason to repurpose the NACM group concept for user >>>>>> network access >>>>>> purposes. It could easily be modeled differently. So in the cases >>>>>> where there >>>>>> are leafrefs to NACM groups when dealing with network access rather >>>>>> than >>>>>> management access, don't use NACM groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> leaf src-target { >>>>>> type leafref { >>>>>> path >>>>>> /nacm:nacm/nacm:groups/nacm:group/nacm:user-name; // >>>>>> <== Point to some other list of network users >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Management access control principles >>>>>> >>>>>> Management access control is about which users are able to >>>>>> configure/run >>>>>> actions/the policies and rules. IMO, the most controversial aspect of >>>>>> this >>>>>> module has always been its new and creative management access control >>>>>> model. In >>>>>> this revision, the management principles have been remodeled greatly >>>>>> to fit in >>>>>> with NACM. I find this redesign very promising, but the result is >>>>>> still not >>>>>> quite ready for publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> The point where integration with NACM concepts is important is when >>>>>> it comes to >>>>>> allow some users to CRUD the NSF policies and rules themselves. There >>>>>> is now a >>>>>> leaf-list "owners" on each policy and rule which point to a list of >>>>>> NACM >>>>>> groups. My understanding is that the idea is that the NSF module >>>>>> should be seen >>>>>> as a service model that translate high level ownership information to >>>>>> specific >>>>>> NACM rules. It would be good to mention these ideas somewhere in the >>>>>> NSF >>>>>> document. >>>>>> >>>>>> leaf-list owners { >>>>>> type leafref { >>>>>> path /nacm:nacm/nacm:groups/nacm:group/nacm:name; >>>>>> >>>>>> I expect the intent is that any user listed in a NACM group mentioned >>>>>> in the >>>>>> owners list would get full CRUD privileges for the contents of the >>>>>> rule the >>>>>> owners leaf sits on. That is never spelled out anywhere, however. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a little less clear how leaf-list owners on policy objects >>>>>> should be >>>>>> handled. Should owners listed on a policy object get full CRUD powers >>>>>> over the >>>>>> entire policy, including all the rules inside? Or would they need to >>>>>> be listed >>>>>> on the rules as well? Not clear. Is the intent that users not listed >>>>>> on the >>>>>> policy object are unable to create new rules, but to be able to >>>>>> update rules >>>>>> they are listed as owners of, if any? >>>>>> >>>>>> Who is allowed to create new policy objects? Should users that are >>>>>> not owners >>>>>> get read access to all the policies and rules? >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, there is an "owner" leaf on each rule with an identityref >>>>>> allowing >>>>>> operators to configure a role name like dept-head or sec-admin. It is >>>>>> marked >>>>>> mandatory, but never included in any of the examples at the end of the >>>>>> document. This makes me think this may be a remnant from bygone times >>>>>> and >>>>>> should be removed from the YANG. If not, an explanation of how to use >>>>>> this >>>>>> leaf, and how it interacts with "owners" needs to be added, and the >>>>>> examples >>>>>> updated. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. leafrefs crosspointing between policy instances >>>>>> >>>>>> There are six leafrefs that point to various objects inside a policy, >>>>>> e.g. a >>>>>> rule condition pointing to a device group name. None of them restrict >>>>>> what can >>>>>> be pointed to so that only names within the current policy are valid. >>>>>> It is >>>>>> therefore possible to configure the name of a device group defined in >>>>>> a >>>>>> different policy. I suspect this is not the intention. In order to >>>>>> restrict the >>>>>> leafrefs to the same policy, the following predicate can be added: >>>>>> >>>>>> leaf-list src-target { >>>>>> type leafref { >>>>>> path >>>>>> >>>>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy[policy-name=current()/../../../../../policy-name]/endpoint-group/device-group/name"; >>>>>> // <== Add predicate >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Mandatory to implement all events, conditions, actions >>>>>> >>>>>> Each rule is defined with a choice of different events (admin, time), >>>>>> conditions (firewall, ddos, custom, threat-feed) and actions (pass, >>>>>> drop, >>>>>> alert, mirror, ...). Is the intent that all of these options should be >>>>>> mandatory to implement? The current model requires this. Also, would >>>>>> it make >>>>>> sense to allow additional mechanisms here? If so, it may be good to >>>>>> explain to >>>>>> readers how the set of choices and identities can be extended by >>>>>> implementations. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Optional and mandatory elements >>>>>> >>>>>> In this revision of the module, 8 leafs have been marked mandatory. A >>>>>> few of >>>>>> them are list keys, which are conventionally not marked mandatory, >>>>>> since list >>>>>> keys are always mandatory. A few others are skipped in the XML >>>>>> examples at the >>>>>> end of the NSF document, which makes me believe they might not really >>>>>> be >>>>>> mandatory after all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Three leafs have a default, but most leafs are left optional without >>>>>> any >>>>>> default. In many cases I think I understand what it means to not set >>>>>> a leaf, >>>>>> but with the ones listed here, I don't think it clear at all. Either >>>>>> add a >>>>>> default to make it clear, make them mandatory if they should be, or >>>>>> explain in >>>>>> the leaf description what happens if not set. >>>>>> >>>>>> 493: leaf-list name >>>>>> 513: leaf-list protocol >>>>>> 531: leaf geo-ip-ipv4 >>>>>> 541: leaf continent >>>>>> 562: leaf feed-server-ipv4 >>>>>> 585: leaf payload-description >>>>>> 590: leaf-list content >>>>>> 600: leaf-list owners >>>>>> 870: leaf method >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. Indentation >>>>>> >>>>>> The YANG indentation is mostly wrong. Run the YANG text through pyang >>>>>> or some >>>>>> other tool that can indent the content correctly before you put it >>>>>> into a >>>>>> document. >>>>>> >>>>>> 7. YANG element naming >>>>>> >>>>>> The YANG convention is to not have lists on the top level in the YANG >>>>>> module, >>>>>> but to surround lists with a container. The surrounding container >>>>>> often has a >>>>>> name in the plural and the list in singluar, like this >>>>>> >>>>>> container interfaces { >>>>>> list interface { >>>>>> >>>>>> To better fit into the world of IETF YANG modules, I'd recommend >>>>>> turning the >>>>>> top level list i2nsf-cfi-policy into this instead: >>>>>> >>>>>> container i2nsf-cfi-policies { >>>>>> list policy { >>>>>> >>>>>> Further down, I would change container rule to rules: >>>>>> >>>>>> container rules { >>>>>> list rule { >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, it is customary to not repeat the names of parent object in >>>>>> the names >>>>>> of elements. For example, in the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> list threat-feed-list >>>>>> leaf feed-name >>>>>> leaf feed-server-ipv4 >>>>>> leaf feed-server-ipv6 >>>>>> leaf feed-description >>>>>> >>>>>> all the leafs should normally not repeat "feed-". Just leaf name, leaf >>>>>> server-ipv4, leaf server-ipv6, leaf description. There are many more >>>>>> examples >>>>>> of this throughout the module. >>>>>> >>>>>> The condition choice has many containers with a single leaf inside >>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>> ddos-source). Their purpose is rather unclear to me. Remove? >>>>>> >>>>>> container ddos-source { >>>>>> description >>>>>> "This represents the source."; >>>>>> leaf-list src-target { >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I find the name "src-target" rather confusing. How about >>>>>> "source"? >>>>>> >>>>>> 8. No date leaf >>>>>> >>>>>> The draft text near fig 2 talks about a date leaf. There is no date >>>>>> object in >>>>>> this revision of te YANG. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Date: Date when this object was created or last modified" >>>>>> >>>>>> 9. leaf owner >>>>>> >>>>>> Near fig.3 leaf Owner is mentioned. Is this leaf still current? >>>>>> >>>>>> "Owner: This field contains the onwer of the rule. For example, >>>>>> the person who created it, and eligible for modifying >>>>>> it." >>>>>> >>>>>> 10. leaf packet-per-second >>>>>> >>>>>> This is now modeled as uint16. Is this future proof? Many packet >>>>>> flows on the >>>>>> internet exceed 64k pps. >>>>>> >>>>>> 11. container custon-source >>>>>> >>>>>> Misspelled. Should be custom-source >>>>>> >>>>>> 12. identity ddos >>>>>> >>>>>> Is ddos a malware file-type? This is not exactly in line with my >>>>>> intuition. >>>>>> >>>>>> 13. identity protocol-type >>>>>> >>>>>> There are other modules that already define protocol-types. Would it >>>>>> be worth >>>>>> reusing one of them? >>>>>> >>>>>> 14. identity palo-alto >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it a good IETF practice to list vendor names in modules? Can we >>>>>> consider >>>>>> this a protocol name? Is there perhaps an RFC/specification name for >>>>>> it that we >>>>>> could reference instead? >>>>>> >>>>>> 15. grouping ipsec-based-method >>>>>> >>>>>> This grouping contains a list which allows listing none of, either of >>>>>> or both >>>>>> of ipsecike and ikeless. Are all valid configurations? >>>>>> >>>>>> 16. leaf feed-name >>>>>> >>>>>> This leaf is the key in a list, which makes it possible to have at >>>>>> most one >>>>>> feed of each type. If it would make sense to configure more than one >>>>>> feed of >>>>>> the same type, the YANG needs to be updated here. >>>>>> >>>>>> 17. leaf-list content >>>>>> >>>>>> This leaflist is of type string. What is the format of this string? >>>>>> Does the >>>>>> name refer to something? >>>>>> >>>>>> 18. Event types >>>>>> >>>>>> container event has a choice between enforce-admin and time >>>>>> alternatives. Each >>>>>> of those choices have a leaf that allows the operator to configure an >>>>>> identityref to an enforce-type value. What does that mean? What would >>>>>> it mean >>>>>> if an operator configured admin == 'time' (or enforce-time == >>>>>> 'admin')? >>>>>> >>>>>> 19. leaf begin-time, end-time >>>>>> >>>>>> >From the examples, it can be seen that these are meant to be a time >>>>>> of day >>>>>> values. Currently they are modeled as yang:date-and-time, which means >>>>>> they are >>>>>> a concrete time a specific day, e.g. 2019-11-11T16:07. This needs to >>>>>> be changed >>>>>> in order to be what the modeler intended. Perhaps like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef time-of-day { >>>>>> type string { >>>>>> pattern '(2[0-3]|[01]?[0-9]):[0-5][0-9]'; >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> 20. leaf frequency >>>>>> >>>>>> This leaf is now modeled properly from a YANG perspective. But what >>>>>> does it >>>>>> mean? If this leaf is set to 'once-only', what exactly will happen >>>>>> only once? >>>>>> Please write a description that explains this. >>>>>> >>>>>> 21. Example in Fig.17 >>>>>> >>>>>> The example contains XML that refers to "endpoint-group/user-group". >>>>>> There is >>>>>> no such element in the YANG. >>>>>> >>>>>> <endpoint-group >>>>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy"> >>>>>> <user-group> >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing called range-ip-address, >>>>>> start-ip-address, >>>>>> end-ip-address. They are called range-ipv4-address, >>>>>> start-ipv4-address, >>>>>> end-ipv4-address. >>>>>> >>>>>> <range-ip-address> >>>>>> <start-ip-address>221.159.112.1</start-ip-address> >>>>>> <end-ip-address>221.159.112.90</end-ip-address> >>>>>> </range-ip-address> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, there must not be any xmlns attribute on an closing XML tag. >>>>>> So >>>>>> >>>>>> </endpoint-group >>>>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy"> >>>>>> >>>>>> should be >>>>>> >>>>>> </endpoint-group> >>>>>> >>>>>> This happens in several of the examples. >>>>>> >>>>>> 22. Example in Fig.18 >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no element called policy any more. It's now i2nsf-cfi-policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> <policy xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy"> >>>>>> <policy-name>security_policy_for_blocking_sns</policy-name> >>>>>> >>>>>> The rules are modeled in a container and list, both by the name rule. >>>>>> So there >>>>>> needs to be two <rule> tags. >>>>>> >>>>>> <rule> >>>>>> <rule-name>block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours</rule-name> >>>>>> >>>>>> The security-event element is marked mandatory in the YANG, but >>>>>> missing in the >>>>>> example. The times given below may be what is intended, but do not >>>>>> match the >>>>>> date format for the type used (which include a date, etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> <event> >>>>>> <time-information> >>>>>> <begin-time>09:00</begin-time> >>>>>> <end-time>18:00</end-time> >>>>>> </time-information> >>>>>> </event> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the example is not mentioning leaf frequency, it will have the >>>>>> value >>>>>> 'once-only'. Maybe explain what that means in the context of the >>>>>> example? >>>>>> >>>>>> The condition/firewall-condition says the src-target is mandatory and >>>>>> dest-target optional, exactly like below. >>>>>> condition/custom-destination/dest-target is mandatory and src-target >>>>>> is >>>>>> optional, exactly like below. Is this pure luck, or is there a logical >>>>>> explanation why exactly those should be mandatory, and the example use >>>>>> precisely those? >>>>>> >>>>>> <condition> >>>>>> <firewall-condition> >>>>>> <source-target> >>>>>> <src-target>employees</src-target> >>>>>> </source-target> >>>>>> </firewall-condition> >>>>>> <custom-condition> >>>>>> <destination-target> >>>>>> <dest-target>sns-websites</dest-target> >>>>>> </destination-target> >>>>>> </custom-condition> >>>>>> >>>>>> The current YANG model does not allow setting both a >>>>>> firewall-condition and >>>>>> custom-condition. If that should be allowed, the model needs to >>>>>> change. Should >>>>>> it be possible to have multiple firewall- or other conditions? That >>>>>> is not >>>>>> currently possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> This example leaves out the mandatory leaf owner. Is that a sign that >>>>>> it should >>>>>> not be mandatory, or perhaps not exist at all? >>>>>> >>>>>> 23. Example in Fig.19 >>>>>> >>>>>> This example lists a firewall-condition with no src-target, which is >>>>>> mandatory. >>>>>> >>>>>> <firewall-condition> >>>>>> <destination-target> >>>>>> <dest-target>employees</dest-target> >>>>>> </destination-target> >>>>>> </firewall-condition> >>>>>> >>>>>> Under condition, there is a container rate-limit with a leaf >>>>>> packet-per-second. >>>>>> Is this a trigger value for the condition, or is it an actual limit >>>>>> that the >>>>>> system is expected to enforce? If it's a trigger, it may be good to >>>>>> find a >>>>>> clearer name. If it's enforced, it's placement under condition is >>>>>> deceiving. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a rule's action is set to 'rate-limit', to which rate will it be >>>>>> limited? >>>>>> >>>>>> 24. Security Considerations >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 10 in the NSF document under review is the Security >>>>>> Considerations. I >>>>>> think it would make sense to mention something about the management >>>>>> access >>>>>> control mechanism here, and its relation to NACM. >>>>>> >>>>>> (End of list) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> I2nsf mailing list >>>>>> I2nsf@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> =========================== >>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>>>> Associate Professor >>>>> Department of Software >>>>> Sungkyunkwan University >>>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> =========================== >>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Department of Software >>>> Sungkyunkwan University >>>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> =========================== >>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering >>> Sungkyunkwan University >>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>> >> >> >> -- >> =========================== >> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor >> Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> Sungkyunkwan University >> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >> >> <Revision-Letter-for-I2NSF-Consumer-Facing-Interface-YANG-Data-Model-20200711-v1.pdf> >> >> >> > > -- > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
- [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-iet… Jan Lindblad via Datatracker
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Jan Lindblad
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Jan Lindblad
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… tom petch