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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 DB0E01295BB; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:49:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FBT4JFdnqSRc; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4BA1270B4; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.36]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BDD21AE0285; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:49:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:49:27 +0100
Message-Id: <20170123.124927.1981323175493127948.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: giles.heron@gmail.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <B6F497AF-1610-457A-9BCE-128960C54AAA@gmail.com>
References: <01ee01d27568$784b6020$68e22060$@ndzh.com> <20170123112904.GA29980@elstar.local> <B6F497AF-1610-457A-9BCE-128960C54AAA@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/o9hweH8vGPzspmz_qD4w6oPInJk>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-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: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:49:32 -0000

Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:
> ODL does, indeed, implement the topology models, but generally the
> data in the topology model is operational data

Hmm, almost the entire tree is defined as "config true".  There are
just a few "config false" leafs.

>, so I’m not sure how
> that fits with “designed for the I2RS ephemeral control plane data
> store” - since users don’t write to the models directly (making
> validation, priority etc. non-issues).


/martin


> 
> > On 23 Jan 2017, at 11:29, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > 
> > 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:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:39 AM
> >> To: Susan Hares
> >> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG';
> >> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org;
> >> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
> >> 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:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:34 AM
> >>> To: Susan Hares
> >>> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG';
> >>> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; 
> >>> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
> >>> 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:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:44 PM
> >>>> To: The IESG
> >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; 
> >>>> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; i2rs@ietf.org
> >>>> 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
> >>>> 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/>
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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/>
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs