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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Andy:
>
>
>
> This is probably a good idea.  Does the NACM apply equally to NETCONF and
> RESTCONF?
>
>
>

Yes -- well, soon - there is a 6536bis draft to add RESTCONF and YANG 1.1
support to NACM.

> Sue
>

Andy

>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:56 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder; draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org;
> i2rs@ietf.org; Kathleen Moriarty; The IESG; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I realized that the NACM "default-deny-write" and "default-deny-all" tags
> are
>
> very similar.  We are deciding (in the data model) that the data node
>
> can never be sent without an explicit NACM rule allowing it.
>
> (I have never heard from a customer that they want this NACM rule ignored).
>
> We do not abuse these NACM tags. They are rarely used.
>
> I think the same will be true for the I2RS extension.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> Andy:
>
>
>
> You are right to comment that – the “flip side of this extensions is that
> any node not properly tagged must not be SENT”.   The purpose of tagging is
> devices which test protocol conformation can test these portions of the
> model.  If buyers demand that these restrictions are followed, then these
> restrictions will not be ignored.  Like you and Juergen, I really hope that
> the IESG will very carefully evaluate any I2RS YANG Model that suggest
> sending data over non-secure transport.
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:31 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* Juergen Schoenwaelder; draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org;
> i2rs@ietf.org; Kathleen Moriarty; The IESG; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Juergen on this issue.
>
> But you can easily design a YANG extension that indicates a data node
>
> is OK for insecure transport.
>
>
>
> I trust that the IESG will evaluate every object of this type and
>
> decide whether it is really OK for disclosure in every possible
>
> usage scenario.
>
>
>
> The flip-side of this extension is that any node not properly tagged
>
> MUST NOT be sent without the proper security protocols.
>
> This rule will likely be ignored, since (as Juergen pointed out)
>
> this is a deployment decision, not a modeling decision.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 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/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>
>
>
>
>