Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Juergen:
>
> Yes, we seem to disagree on the value of making it hardwired in the model.
> For me, the value is a common understanding of deployment distribution such
> as the route-views.   Since the operators argued strongly for this point, I
> think the best idea is to get it working in code and then see if the
> deployment matches the requests.

This sounds like more of an experiment, doesn't it?

Thanks,
Kathleen

>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:14 AM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG';
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and
> COMMENT)
>
> Sue,
>
> I still do not see why the 'mode of exposure' of data benefits from being
> hard-wired in the data model. For me, it is a situational and deployment
> specific question. But I shut up here since I aired this concern before (and
> we simply seem to disagree).
>
> /js
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:07:18AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
>> Juergen:
>>
>> My example is the looking glass servers for the BGP route views
>> project
>> (http://www.routeviews.org/) or a route indicating the presence of a
>> web-server that is public.   For the BGP I2RS route, a yang model could
>> replace the looking glass function, and provide events for these looking
>> glass functions.    For the web-server route,  an event be sent when that
>> one route is added.
>>
>> Sue
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:32 AM
>> To: Susan Hares
>> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and
>> COMMENT)
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:16:48PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> > COMMENT:
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> >
>> > > Section 3:
>> > > Can you clarify the second to last sentence?  Do you mean there
>> > > are
>> sections that indicate an insecure transport should be used?
>> > >   I2RS allows the use of an
>> > >  insecure transport for portions of data models that clearly
>> > > indicate  insecure transport.
>> >
>> > >  Perhaps:
>> > >  I2RS allows the use of an
>> > >  insecure transport for portions of data models that clearly
>> > > indicate the use of an  insecure transport.
>>
>> I still wonder how a data model writer can reasonably decide whether a
>> piece of information can be shipped safely over an insecure transport
>> since this decision often depends on the specifics of a deployment
> situation.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> PS: I hope we do not end up with defining data multiple times (once
>>     for insecure transport and once for secured transports).
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen