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

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Andy: 

 

You are right to comment that – the “flip side of this extensions is that any node not properly tagged must not be SENT”.   The purpose of tagging is devices which test protocol conformation can test these portions of the model.  If buyers demand that these restrictions are followed, then these restrictions will not be ignored.  Like you and Juergen, I really hope that the IESG will very carefully evaluate any I2RS YANG Model that suggest sending data over non-secure transport.  

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:31 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kathleen Moriarty; The IESG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

 

Hi,

 

I strongly agree with Juergen on this issue.

But you can easily design a YANG extension that indicates a data node

is OK for insecure transport.

 

I trust that the IESG will evaluate every object of this type and

decide whether it is really OK for disclosure in every possible

usage scenario. 

 

The flip-side of this extension is that any node not properly tagged

MUST NOT be sent without the proper security protocols.

This rule will likely be ignored, since (as Juergen pointed out)

this is a deployment decision, not a modeling decision.

 

 

Andy

 

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> 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/>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs