Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Susan,

I consider tagging a YANG object statically and universally in the
data model as "does not need secure communication" fundamentally
flawed; I am not having an issue with insecure communication in
certain deployment contexts.

The topology drafts are regular generic YANG models that just happen
to be done in I2RS - I believe that using the generic YANG security
guidelines we have is good enough to progress these drafts.

/js

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:15:15PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Juergen: 
> 
> I recognize that dislike insecure communication.  You made a similar comment
> during the WG LC and IETF review of
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements.  However, the
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements were passed by the I2RS WG
> and approved by the IESG for RFC publication and it contains the non-secure
> communication.  The mandate from the I2RS WG for this shepherd/co-chair is
> clear.  
> 
> As the shepherd for the topology drafts, I try to write-up something that
> might address Kathleen's Moriarty's concerns about the topology draft's
> security issues about privacy and the I2RS ephemeral control plane data
> store.   I welcome an open discussion on my ideas
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider).   The
> yang doctor's YANG  security consideration template
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines) and the
> privacy related RFCs (RFC6973) note that some information is sensitive.
> Hopefully, this document extends these guidelines to a new data store. 
> 
> Cheerily, 
> Sue Hares 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:34 AM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG';
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> For what it is worth, I find the notion that data models may be written for
> a specific non-secure transport plain broken. There is hardly any content of
> a data model I can think of which is generally suitable for insecure
> transports.
> 
> Can we please kill this idea of _standardizing_ information that is suitable
> to send over non-secure transports? I really do not see how the IETF can
> make a claim that a given piece of information is never worth protecting (=
> suitable for non-secure transports).
> 
> Note that I am fine if in a certain trusted tightly-coupled deployment
> information is shipped in whatever way but this is then a property of the
> _deployment_ and not a property of the _information_.
> 
> /js
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:28:14AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> > Kathleen: 
> > 
> > I have written a draft suggesting a template for the I2RS YANG modules
> which are designed to exist in the I2RS Ephemeral Control Plane data store
> (configuration and operational state).    
> > 
> > Draft location: 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider/
> > 
> > I would appreciate an email discussion with the security ADs, OPS/NM ADs,
> and Routing AD (Alia Atlas).  I agree that this I2RS YANG data model (L3)
> and the base I2RS topology model should both provide updated YANG Security
> Considerations sections. I would appreciate if Benoit or you hold a discuss
> until we sort out these issues. 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Sue
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:44 PM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on 
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> > 
> > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: No Objection
> > 
> > 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 
> > https://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:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > I agree with Alissa's comment that the YANG module security consideration
> section guidelines need to be followed and this shouldn't go forward until
> that is corrected.  I'm told it will be, thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > i2rs mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>