Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw’s DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 21 August 2019 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49866120D01; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 header.b=WwSxIutZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=wBIk3I1F
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 votvvksIaiRI; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28638120CFF; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17989; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1566407544; x=1567617144; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=8tsIcW3D4GWwQjIwPZBCvD54EnvrbOBsAx1mpxvXsGk=; b=WwSxIutZ9APIImEir0576lJYkAqo/KiOfUDYoMyJR6vPLGpeLEwCksMF /pkqG8ifYSqOpp+9xVyluvrNdPW/FXsmoD37l+doPDj59Fyvz2+pGwFuZ OF+923BV/ElYFRPl8jX4DqT7+jC0zk988JvbqZ8Fn7K8TFOozn9P4jt/G E=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ASs7Ilx+TkY1SFf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+/YR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfJq3UeaNpJXh?= =?us-ascii?q?4Bh98RmlkpC8OIIUb6N/XtKSc9GZcKWQ=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DGAABoel1d/4kNJK1kGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBZ4EWL1ADbVUgBAsqhB+DRwOKZoI3JYleiS2EWoJSA1QJAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDAEBIwoCAQGEPwIXgkUjOBMCBQEBBAEBAQIBBgRthScMhUoBAQEBAxIRChM?= =?us-ascii?q?BATcBDwIBCA4DAwECKwICAh8RGgMIAgQBDQUigwABgR1NAx0BAgyfagKBOIh?= =?us-ascii?q?hc4EygnsBAQWFFw0LghYDBoE0i24YgX+BEScME4JMPoIaRwKBQQEBPg2CXjK?= =?us-ascii?q?CJo5mMYUPiQKNcUAJAoIdhmiJWIN5G4Ixi0iKTYMviiyHY4F6jjECBAIEBQI?= =?us-ascii?q?OAQEFgWchgVhwFRohKgGCQYJCg3KFFIU/cgyBHYlagkMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,412,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="315584015"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 21 Aug 2019 17:12:22 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7LHCMxs021819 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:22 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:12:21 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:12:20 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:12:20 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=c5R1N4bl1lyjCr/+vDlt6oN8o8vsOHtzfdB1QanDrcFGlucQMwgiJM+WQ81AmGx0mLXfhH8DCUKcrmK4n48sngzDtBfqC2UL8rhluH7VkzVWa0wtbLxfdgC/vGtsaWwgld9kBYuWjb+0KRGy7ie7MA0CwUAZCWOfkqmJ/jRWDfMF5DVhsfhYAPvaj/vN8wgqp002UOWSWPAkRuspCRIasAgdEFjL3U+nkLBB9bC2PKsBHvxoN/NB516X07Lqqp+DF3pYH++aFI7VzWI+d2jOE0kg8RwMIp6QMrbsD+xallcYAwLTuvKSOA3wvQffhrlrKMpNUFDFdjPq0qyh80Sdwg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8tsIcW3D4GWwQjIwPZBCvD54EnvrbOBsAx1mpxvXsGk=; b=MGLYi72hT9RmaySeDW76y/T8EMYgpqLojLy7SQScmXOs6RDCPXylh2ZrzU/RdKgF6FdR5pXtZ292wjYFIWJ1KWpwoQVJHYjYVcVsIS3mtAPFm4jD1oWVsefGlsSnV9jKjcCDpW4/spcLT2fOVa97bBt6OthwckZDfIYsQONqrIgKmn5Y7d99c9mSvRAL5lbz+qYhd+d4Po6SnslLtTWkWVR8B7QEeDCj6/lQand5GVat9W7cNpwAuSlUY2IASd1/uq09DWn9XMpJ9B2jrFj2yNlrNmR/uKooBeUJ6U0PhiWdJh303gH+PMsWYRNVCcWG6lPvqDfPIRtlTAjdopvtIw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8tsIcW3D4GWwQjIwPZBCvD54EnvrbOBsAx1mpxvXsGk=; b=wBIk3I1Fozo7NoqdXIG7uOqR0/dYUmvGxlfNs975YYEhv8o2Z45qxveqAj4MaaU/VtDDvyvAfIU+H2oPH29DXa7eyR1HZmddJYJCbBW1VvqWpQ6CPIC11HLQ8iovG75e7+G6OEbvbTKUbbc35EG5cHnytjI6SgoQOwfaU+MBYdw=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.14) by MN2PR11MB3823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.254.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2178.18; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:18 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::859c:f271:3be2:74e0]) by MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::859c:f271:3be2:74e0%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2178.020; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:18 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
CC: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?Um9tYW4gRGFueWxpd+KAmXMgRElTQ1VTUyBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9zcGYt?= =?utf-8?Q?yang-26?=
Thread-Index: AQHVWDLCA0dMG1KrR0yv+3jHy3LViKcFk7eA
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:18 +0000
Message-ID: <BC47D960-05C1-4557-AB58-5728F2B1E9F6@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESswWu7E+DHW+8t9y5BXTGn3tqYo=vTR+j536MXcdsNEpog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswWu7E+DHW+8t9y5BXTGn3tqYo=vTR+j536MXcdsNEpog@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1007::de]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e81023a2-097a-4c2e-62ce-08d7265ab883
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3823;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3823:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3823CD4BEDD1E610435BC3A6C2AA0@MN2PR11MB3823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:2733;
x-forefront-prvs: 0136C1DDA4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(4326008)(446003)(229853002)(14444005)(790700001)(6116002)(66476007)(256004)(64756008)(66556008)(99286004)(66446008)(66946007)(606006)(6486002)(2501003)(86362001)(25786009)(76116006)(8936002)(7736002)(14454004)(6246003)(33656002)(966005)(6512007)(110136005)(71200400001)(76176011)(6436002)(53936002)(71190400001)(81166006)(54906003)(236005)(476003)(5660300002)(6306002)(54896002)(46003)(486006)(2616005)(186003)(6506007)(102836004)(2906002)(478600001)(81156014)(11346002)(316002)(36756003)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3823; H:MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: TOBbjMQ4Ln2f7ArREP96epCH3dF/kuHu68o4s0bwMYyXvSVdLjzNX7jR8vD5tP5haI/eVyzxbskBNyuzktOZavohynPdO0L6dZ2P77py3/cLGQzc7U948HaIrB/wdV0tuoM5QVKfVKZXmG4taYny119ffNEL3GMnSdvzXoJU9L93QafmZKSOKozoG/AGJl9Uhx5HNfV+fzaB0i5I/ZaIuMJMtjaAz5HGILFARJaMVi6LMyYCooWMRcj6c2eZ1MLcDIbk44VdvCqfxQ2VZh9ArKoFRUcKvt8CboGpKk+AuBfyCJljAC5FI3Ho3eQIqtbTkUiFWugRAEovwZr1TR9ZDVioDVQtbtDW/D9RKDjV/+zMEqsNQYgwKEHllxjAX8pl25dgYZF9YyRT/QCFZ8m2kq7f9bb/pnssV+zn9D7YMdA=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BC47D96005C14557AB585728F2B1E9F6ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e81023a2-097a-4c2e-62ce-08d7265ab883
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Aug 2019 17:12:18.0265 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 1ty445oMs3owWChdrEDloedvetZQxqJgTnm5FwvNRTvd8hMwCM1QeHiUQttM9pRK
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3823
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.21, xch-rcd-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/B5qtOVZGm_6yXLMRy1tp9hshzD0>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?Roman_Danyliw=E2=80=99s_DISCUSS_on_draft-ietf-os?= =?utf-8?q?pf-yang-26?=
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:27 -0000

Hi Alvaro, Roman,

See nits only response.

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:11 AM
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>;
Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>;, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org"; <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>;, "lsr@ietf.org"; <lsr@ietf.org>;, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
Subject: Roman Danyliw’s DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>;
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>;, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;
Resent-Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:08 AM

[It looks like the datatracker didn’t send out the text to Roman’s DISCUSS.  I didn’t receive it, nor do I see it in the mail archive.  So I’m pasting it here. — Alvaro.]

- - - - - - - - - - -
DISCUSS
- - - - - - - - - - -

A “discuss to discuss”.  Per the convention outlined in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, thank you for clearly noting the implication of not securing these nodes properly.

Furthermore, following the convention, I would have expected Section 4 to have enumerated the sensitive writeable/creatable/deletable data nodes; and the sensitive readable nodes individually.  For a model this large, I can imagine that individual enumeration would be a long list.

In the case of read operations, the text opens with saying that “some of the readable data nodes ...” and later says “The exposure of the ... LSDB will expose the detailed topology ...”.  Can you help me understand which part of ietf-ospf.yang is the LSDB and which parts refer to “some of the readable nodes”?  Is there are a difference, or is this text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control?

A related line of questioning for the write operation.  The text opens with saying that “There are a number of data nodes defined in ietf-ospf.yang ... [and that] [w]rite operations ... to these nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on the network operations ... [and] ... the ability to modify OSPF configuration ...” is problematic.  Can you help me understand which parts of the text is the “OSPF configuration” vs. “there are number of data nodes ...”?  If there isn’t a different, is the text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control?


- - - - - - - - - - -
COMMENT
- - - - - - - - - - -

(1) Idnits returned a seemingly valid few reference issues:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1765

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 4973

As Alvaro indicated, this was discussed and both these are implemented.

(2) Editorial
-- Section 4.  Isn’t RFC8341, “the Network Configuration Access Control Model” rather than the “NETCONF access control model”?

This refers to the NACM model itself and not the RFC title. However, I believe “ NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM)” is better and have updated.

-- Section 4.  Typo.  s/specificationn/specification/
Fixed in -27.

-- Section 4.  Remove the duplicate instance of the phrase “for legacy implementations that do not support key-chains”.
Fixed in -27.

-- Section 4.  Typo.  s/The OSPF YANG module support/the OSPF YANG module supports/
Fixed in -27.

Thanks,
Acee

Alvaro Retana