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

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

Juergen: 

Let's focus on your second point.  The topology drafts are I2RS drafts
designed for the I2RS ephemeral control plane data store.   How can these be
generic YANG modules when the following is true: 

1) I2RS Data models do not utilize the configuration data store, 
2) I2RS Data Models do not require the same validation as configuration data
store, 
3) I2RS Data models require the use of priority to handle the multi-write
contention problem into the I2RS Control Plane data store, 
4) I2RS require TLS with X.509v3 over TCP for the mandatory-to-implement
transport, 

Do you disagree with draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores?  If so,  the
discussion should be taken up with netmod WG list.  
Do you disagree with i2rs-protocol-security-requirements?  That issue is
closed based on IESG approval. 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:39 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)

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/>