Re: [i2rs] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Juergen: 

Good catch.   Thanks. 

sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:12 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Christian Huitema'; 'Qin Wu'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13

But please s/agents/clients/ .

/js

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:36:23AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> Qin and Christian: 
> 
> This addition words for me. 
> 
> Sue
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:05 AM
> To: Susan Hares; 'Qin Wu'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [i2rs] Secdir last call review of 
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13
> 
> How about adding something like this:
> 
> Privacy Considerations
> 
> The Yang model for layer 2 topology exposes privacy sensitive information, for example the MAC addresses of devices. Unrestricted use of such information can lead to privacy violations. For example, listing MAC addresses in a network allows monitoring of devices and their movements. Location information can be derived from MAC addresses of network devices, bypassing protection of location information by the Operating System.
> 
> Deployments should mitigate this privacy concerns by limiting access to the layer 2 topology information. Access to the information should be restricted to a minimal list of authorized agents, and should require proper authentication of these agents.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> On 6/25/2020 7:00 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> > Qin and Christian: 
> >
> > Thank you for your prompt attention to the privacy issue.  
> > I'm sure Christian will respond in a bit - since he might be in PDT time-zone. 
> >
> > Once you have a solution you both like, we should validate the 
> > privacy changes to the security considerations section with the 
> > Yang-doctors, OPS-ADs, and Security-ADs.
> >
> > Martin's watching this thread so I'm sure he'll help us out as well. 
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:25 AM
> > To: Susan Hares; 'Christian Huitema'; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail];
> > [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Secdir last call review of
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13
> >
> > Sue and Christian:
> > I have responded to Christian on privacy issue, my proposal is to add MAC address as another data node vulnerability example in our original security consideration section.
> > But If Christian or security directorate has recommending text, we authors are happy to accept it.
> >
> > -Qin
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > 发送时间: 2020年6月25日 21:04
> > 收件人: 'Christian Huitema' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > 抄送: [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 主题: RE: Secdir last call review of
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13
> >
> > Christian:
> >
> > Thank you for catching the privacy issues.      
> >
> > I've got a few questions to help the authors scope this change: 
> >
> > 1) Since this is common to all L2 Topologies, can you or the security directorate recommend some text that might be appropriate? 
> >    If you have recommended text, has this text been reviewed by OPS-DIR and Yang doctors? 
> >
> > 2) Will it be a problem If we write privacy considerations on IEEE specifications? 
> > 3) Do we need to consider the range of deployments of L2 (home, 
> > enterprise,  public PBB service, national PBB service, Data centers)
> >
> >
> > Thank you,  Sue
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Huitema via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:01 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Secdir last call review of
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-13
> >
> > Reviewer: Christian Huitema
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > 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 with the intent of improving security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> >
> > This document describes a Yang model for representing Link Layer topologies.
> > Representing such topologies is obviously useful for managing network