Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 29 June 2018 15:08 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <152955610162.28620.13249468338471662781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <063FD288-AF03-43B0-A519-5BFE418D3DC0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <063FD288-AF03-43B0-A519-5BFE418D3DC0@gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:08:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-enitr0uC37-x3dJR13o4Ju-3b3SSjyR_qo=rGi1v=Dyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ippm@ietf.org, Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b16bc056fc938f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/kQQn16wF0Z_Ge94iZn5Wra1JXz8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi, Manesh,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:14 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> > On Jun 20, 2018, at 9:41 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> >
> > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: Discuss
> >
> > 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-ippm-twamp-yang/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for the work and thought that everyone involved in this document
> spent. I
> > find the model well described and easy to understand.
> >
> > I agree with Ben's comments about including more information about the
> privacy
> > and security properties of specific entities in the module. See
> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines for
> specific
> > guidance.
> >
> > Since this conflicts with normative language in RFC 6087 §3.4 (and
> 6087bis
> > §3.7), it is a blocking defect that needs to be remedied prior to
> publication.
>
> I have added more nodes in the Security Considerations section.
>

I'm not the Adam Interpreter, but I'm seeing considerable new discussion
about the MTI security for NETCONF and RESTCONF, and about what happens if
writable nodes are modified by an attacker. Thank you for that.

Adam said in his Discuss that he was agreeing with Ben's comments on this
topic, and Ben's comments included this question:

 Are there no nodes that are privacy (or otherwise) sensitive when just
readable?


I didn't see any new text about this. Are there privacy-sensitive read-only
nodes?

Thanks,

Spencer

[ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-tw… Adam Roach
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Mahesh Jethanandani
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Mahesh Jethanandani
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Mahesh Jethanandani
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Benjamin Kaduk
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Adam Roach
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Adam Roach
Re: [ippm] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipp… Mahesh Jethanandani