Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: (with COMMENT)

Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Sat, 15 September 2018 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <glenn@cysols.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95787130E6D; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 m8mDEnQbXQET; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from niseko.cysol.co.jp (niseko.cysol.co.jp [210.233.3.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF53128D0C; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.94] (cysvpn07.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id w8F27wo6001843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Sep 2018 11:07:59 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: bess@ietf.org, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
References: <153671698701.17065.13377651669195105482.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <99bfd3a1-eba7-f0ad-2aef-776f2c8fb471@cysols.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 11:07:53 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153671698701.17065.13377651669195105482.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/uKsmDgNkv8HtfRvBx-MQ14j3_lg>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mib-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 02:08:16 -0000

Dear Tsuno,
      I agree with Benjamin Kaduk's comment on the Security
Considerations section. I understand the following sentence copied
verbatim from The Security Guidelines for IETF MIB modules
  >>     Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects
  >>     with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered
  >>     sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
is causing the confusion. The scope of the readable objects restricted
to "objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible" is inadequate
here.

Please change the "i.e" to "e.g.". That will clear the confusion and
make the statement accurate.

Glenn

On 2018/09/12 10:49, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: 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-bess-mvpn-mib/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A general comment that we've been making on lots of documents in this
> space is that it would be nice to be in a place where the acronym "VPN"
> implies transport encryption.  It's unclear that it's appropriate to request
> changes to this specific document toward that end, though.
> 
> Perhaps I'm confused, but "mvpnAdvtPeerAddr" appears in the security
> considerations in the list of address-related objects that may have
> privacy/security impact.  That list is predicated on being "objects with a
> MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible", but all the instances of
> mvpnAdvtPeerAddr I found in the body text were marked as not-accessible.
> Similarly for mvpnMrouteCmcastGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs,
> mvpnMrouteNextHopGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs, and
> mvpnMrouteNextHopAddr.  (Incidentally, why ar mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs
> and mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs plural with the final 's'?)
> 
> Perhaps using subsections to separate the various tables' descriptions
> would aid readability.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>