Re: [i2rs] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-08: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 64F0E12D84D; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham 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 VKLF3TG9goG8; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 AB30312B063; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u7I2xGql012178 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.4]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0500
Message-ID: <83E3F6F1-ED04-4744-BC42-84C67653EC34@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <000801d1f8fb$dd471d00$97d55700$@ndzh.com>
References: <147148830474.23714.14742463076688973726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <000801d1f8fb$dd471d00$97d55700$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/f1KUCdYo61ljupr4RnZqef35z7I>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, i2rs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-08: (with 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 02:59:19 -0000

Yes, that would address my concern, especially if you think implementers 
will pay attention :-)

There may be interaction with the SHOULD in the previous paragraph, but 
I will leave the word-smithing to you.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 17 Aug 2016, at 21:54, Susan Hares wrote:

> Ben:
>
> I'd be glad to take any further suggestions on section 3.2 that 
> improves it for you.  Does modifying this section from
>
> Old/
> A non-secure transport can be used for publishing telemetry data
> or other operational state that was specifically indicated to
> non-confidential in the data model in the Yang syntax.
> /
>
> New/
> A non-secure transport can be used for publishing telemetry data
> or other operational state that was specifically indicated to
> non-confidential in the data model in the Yang syntax.
> Anything not specifically marked as "non-confidential" MUST
> be transmitted over a secure transport connection.
> /
>
> Help your concerns on version 3.2?
>
> Sue
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:45 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements@ietf.org; Jeffrey 
> Haas; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; jhaas@pfrc.org; i2rs@ietf.org
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-08: (with COMMENT)
>
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-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-protocol-security-requirements/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Version 8 resolved my discuss point for section 3.4. Thanks!
>
> I don't think it resolved my discuss point for 3.2. I'm clearing 
> anyway, because I think my point has been made. I would prefer the 
> language to say that anything not explicitly marked as 
> non-confidential in the relevant data model MUST be sent over a 
> protected transport. But I will leave it to the authors to do the 
> right thing.
>
> I will leave my non-discuss comments below for reference. I think 
> version
> 8 resolves at least some of them. Any remaining are up to you; none of 
> them are show stoppers.
>
>> -2.1: I am on the fence about other's comments about copying 
>> definitions here--but if you do copy them here, it seems strange to 
>> not mention "client" or "agent".
>
> [Sue] Removed definitions.
>
>> I agree with Alissa about equating privacy and confidentiality.
> [Sue]: Removed definition with this text.
>
> -3.1,:
>> ? I’m confused by the first paragraph. I don’t find strings of 
>> the form of SEC-REQ-XX in 7921. I think _this_ doc sets these 
>> requirements, right?
>
> This document restates the concepts in RFC7921, and adds specific 
> numbers.  The restatement in this form allows requirements to be 
> checked against the developed protocol.
>
>
>> It’s not clear to me how 5 and 6 differ. Is it just a matter of the 
>> additional “before establishing a connection” part in 6?
>
> Version 08 has these two merged.
>
>
>> -3.4: Isn't 15 simply a restatement of the third item under 14?
>
> Changed this text.  Please review the new 13 and 14.
>
> 3.5: The  MAYs in 19 and 20 seem like statements of fact. (That is, do 
> they simply recognize reality, or to they  grant permission?)
>
> They provide a list of approved examples so that the NETCONF/RESTCONF 
> can review these examples.  These examples will help the 
> NETCONF/RESTCONF in their design discussions.
>
> Sue