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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

I thought the topology models are coming more or less from
OpenDaylight. If so, is ODL and I2RS implementation?

/js

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:04:28AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> 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/>
> 

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