Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

See in-line.

On 10/12/2021 11:39 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>> Section 6
>>>
>>> I agree with Roman that it would be nice to be able to say something
>>> about the potential scope of security considerations for future
>>> augmentations, if nothing else to aid authors of such future
>>> augmentations in documenting their own security considerations.
>> We now have in the security considerations section.
>>
>>         All protocol-accessible data nodes in augmented modules are
>> read-only
>>           and cannot be modified
> Thanks, that's worth stating clearly.
> I was also imagining something like "This document outlines a framework for
> conveying system capability information that is inherently flexible and
> extensible.  While the full set of use cases is not known now, they may range
> as wide as conveying the minimum update period for periodic subscription
> updates and what protocols might be used for such notifications.  Knowledge
> of this type of value might, for example, allow an attacker to gain insight
> into how long unauthorized configuration changes might be active prior to
> detection, and what communications channels might be disrupted to extend
> the period of non-detection.  Documents adding additional capabilities via
> augmenting this module are encouraged to document the security
> considerations of the new YANG nodes, according to the guidance in BCP
> 216."
>
That's a nice addition, now added in my temp version.

Thanks and regards, Benoit