Re: Review of draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-03-14 09:53, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Russ,
> 
> thanks for your review. See my response to your comments inline.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 01:09:50PM -0800, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review Date: 2017-02-26
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-08
>> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
>>
>> Summary: Ready
>>
>> Major Concerns:
>>
>> Section 3.1 says that the pre-configuration information contains
>> the certificate of the Controller or the certificate of the CA
>> which issued the certificate for the Controller.  Section 3.1.1
>> includes ma-preconfig-credentials.  Are these the same?
> 
> The information model on purse is somewhat unspecific about what
> exactly the security credentials are. The reason is that the
> information model maps to two data models today (one in the BBF and
> one in the IETF). The IETF data model can be accessed over NETCONF and
> RESTCONF. RESTCONF runs over HTTP/TLS while NETCONF by default runs
> over SSH. As a consequence, the various credentials needed to support
> the different protocols varies.
> 

You keep missing my point which is this: I understand the difference
between a data model and an information model. What I don't understand
is if you need one or two credentials in the information model.

	Cheers LEif

>> Section 6 says that secure communication channels are needed.  This
>> means
>> that some components of this system (at least the Controller) must
>> have
>> secret keys or private keys.  I think that Section 6 should talk
>> about
>> which components of this system have keys and the consequences if the
>> keys are not well protected.
> 
> There is a fairly large discussion of security issues in RFC 7594
> and we point to them in section 6 rather than repeating them here.
> 
>    An implementation of this Information Model should support all the
>    security and privacy requirements associated with the LMAP Framework
>    [RFC7594].
> 
>> Minor Concerns:
>>
>> The Introduction in RFC 7594 says: "There is a desire to be able
>> to coordinate the execution of broadband measurements and the
>> collection of measurement results across a large scale set of
>> Measurement Agents (MAs)."  The Fact that LMAP is about broadband
>> measurements should be stated in the first paragraph of the
>> Introduction of this document.
> 
> I suggest to add a sentence including a reference to RFC 7536 so
> that the 1st paragraph of the Introduction reads:
> 
>    A large-scale measurement platform is a collection of components that
>    work in a coordinated fashion to perform measurements from a large
>    number of vantage points.  A typical use case is the execution of
>    broadband measurements [RFC7536].  The main components of a large-
>    scale measurement platform are the Measurement Agents (hereafter
>    MAs), the Controller(s) and the Collector(s).
> 
>> Nits:
>>
>> In Section 3, the reason for the 6 categories should probably be
>> placed before the list instead of several paragraphs later.
> 
> I agree, I have moved the text up (and due to some other comment we
> started to call the categories 'aspects'). So the new text reads:
> 
>    The information model is divided into six aspects.  Firstly the
>    grouping of information facilitates reader understanding.  Secondly,
>    the particular groupings chosen are expected to map to different
>    protocols or different transmissions within those protocols.
> 
>> In 3.1: s/If the MA ID is not provided at this stage then/
>>          /If the MA ID is not provided at this stage, then/
> 
> fixed
> 
> /js
>