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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FF412DE24; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 06:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.738
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ajr_xv3xyzzi; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 06:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8E412DE34; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 06:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.167.170;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Kathleen Moriarty'" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <147146974235.23784.4389421535496134619.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013b01d1f8ee$31fa09b0$95ee1d10$@ndzh.com> <20160818073203.GA4338@elstar.local> <04b501d1f949$116c63e0$34452ba0$@ndzh.com> <20160818121405.GA5282@elstar.local> <051301d1f950$7739c670$65ad5350$@ndzh.com> <CAHbuEH6h5M8uWr7j3UpjTgZPaGC0vCVB1a2_x1XR0PUfU_byRQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH6h5M8uWr7j3UpjTgZPaGC0vCVB1a2_x1XR0PUfU_byRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:20:09 -0400
Message-ID: <051901d1f953$3f458ee0$bdd0aca0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIa7Lz6VgZw6h2A0uGNzOgAA2Ic8QJ/RF5yARxv/coCD6d0AAIDKkFTAYlI9/gCVrmr1p9gV/+A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/aRZWtwfHDfsoVwOdfsRrpqeGfpk>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:21:30 -0000

Kathleen: 

Hmm.  If this sounds like an experiment, then all new protocols are an experiment.   

This is a catch-22 - we are setting requirements for a re-use protocol that has not be designed yet.  We are working on prototypes, but these prototypes cannot match the final work until we agree upon a set of requirements for the protocol.   

Sue Hares 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; i2rs@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; Jeffrey Haas; draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 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:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen 
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:14 AM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The 
> IESG'; jhaas@pfrc.org; 
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org
> 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:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:32 AM
>> To: Susan Hares
>> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG'; jhaas@pfrc.org; i2rs@ietf.org; 
>> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; 
>> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org
>> 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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> i2rs@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen