Re: [netconf] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with DISCUSS)

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

Posted as v21.

> From: Roman Danyliw, May 15, 2019 4:37 PM
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:34 PM
> > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Kent
> > Watsen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-
> > notifications-20: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.   A thought in-line...
> >
> > > From: Roman Danyliw, May 15, 2019 3:33 PM
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > An easy to fix issue.
> > >
> > > Section 8.  I agree with the brevity of this section as the more
> > > detailed considerations can be found in
> > > [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-
> > notifications].
> > > [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] has a similar
> > > statement about buggy subscribers, but also makes a SHOULD statement
> > > about operators monitoring for odd behavior.  This text doesn’t
> > > include this monitoring recommendation but does explicitly discuss
> > > terminating sessions.  Could the text in these two sections please be
> reconciled.
> > Perhaps with a reference such as:
> > >
> > > “This document does not introduce additional Security Considerations
> > > for dynamic subscriptions beyond those discussed in
> > > [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed- notifications].  In particular for
> > > NETCONF
> > subscribers …<use the current text> ”
> >
> > I think what you are looking for is something like:
> > "This document does not introduce additional Security Considerations
> > for dynamic subscriptions beyond those discussed in
> > [draft-ietf-netconf- subscribed-notifications].  But there is one
> > consideration worthy of more refinement based on the connection
> > oriented nature of the NETCONF protocol.  Specifically, if a buggy or
> > compromised NETCONF subscriber sends a number of
> > "establish-subscription" requests, then these subscriptions accumulate
> > and may use up system resources. In such a situation, subscriptions
> > MAY be terminated by terminating the underlying NETCONF session... "
> 
> Works for me (and better than what I proposed).  Thank you for this new text.
> 
> Roman