[lmap] YANG/RESTCONF security considerations: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9211131720; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 07R1qtm2TCVf; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5AB131715; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1229; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489597306; x=1490806906; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jVzJSBYy2Jpzs0cKFaoKu61B+1xSnsCZBXw+BAsb40g=; b=LftLdgAguqmJQRkt8eUa2CAjK8SoBWmdh6hW9S1kc1AEt1nbx/qyHsj0 v1CUFTZJGOyM02Z2ACkt5mqIDFgTWOgyTXl+fhdUmo5nxp25S39aFBBQw XntzGvzU3zTWoF8mfCjxyYpsa3fmZ082rpjrJlfUL2msKvRR/jU31pAvw E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B1AQBlcslY/xbLJq1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBhDIqjk1zkGOTLYIPgg4qhXgCgy4YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFgEFODYbIyM?= =?us-ascii?q?LVwYBDAgBAYl8DrB4imABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEbBYZOggWNIwWcQ4Z2i?= =?us-ascii?q?0WKUoZTiziIDx84gQQjFggXFUGFDYFLP4lnAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,169,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="651472112"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2017 17:01:44 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2FH1gVu018074; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:01:44 GMT
To: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
References: <148943934250.20338.17609730068139281956.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170313211835.GA53972@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6756d540-e497-a983-0c30-ff46c712eecc@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:01:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170313211835.GA53972@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/gOtZtw3RzlELxWGKJPeviPEMBkw>
Subject: [lmap] YANG/RESTCONF security considerations: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:01:49 -0000

Dear all,
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:09:02PM -0700, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> The security considerations looks good, but can't YANG also be accessed
>> via RESTCONF?  What considerations are needed for that?  I thunk we went
>> through this for I2RS, do considerations for RESTCONF apply to this YANG
>> module?
>>
> Yes, the document is using the old template. Looking at
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-12.txt (posted March 5th) and
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines I do not
> see a new template either. I think I recall having seen some
> discussion somewhere (probably related to I2RS) but then I do not see
> new text in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-12.txt. While I can make
> up my own text, I think I prefer following a new template. Benoit?
Yes, a new template is better.
Note that the I2RS discussion is a different one, because they want the 
ability to have yet another protocol (different that NETCONF and 
RESTCONF), an insecure protocol.

The discussion regarding the new template with a RESTCONF reference 
started on the NETMOD mailing list. The SEC ADs are copied. We want to 
make sure that you guys are fine with it.

Regards, Benoit
>
> /js
>