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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 15 May 2019 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EDC1200FD; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 3u0VDzgZvZ1A; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24AE11200FB; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3520; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557953681; x=1559163281; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3ZCE94WFYl4wE8+toToeFNTOC1PpHkVqVgIC+3lQlCk=; b=g3hkUkjF7HfT74w59KkdOot0HZMzPm0CffyJU1z/4+SsH1ewMtYtSMSl IAEK36spF5hhuGONRIHxXGtGFUb5Fx6vG1cT0Ip+Xbsu9TLrBfG7rZNu1 StUitZYGOe07BUYCwX7UsEu8Z9hg7R6BtRrII8Zng+cDGESXAyV+rLCi9 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAAAUfNxc/5pdJa1kGwEBAQEDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBwMBAQGBUgUBAQELAYFmKoE9MCgKhAeVE5hTgXsJAQEBDAEBLwEBhEACF4I?= =?us-ascii?q?UIzUIDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtKIVKAQEBAwEjEUMCBQcEAgEIDgMEAQEDAgkaAwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAjAUAQgIAgQBDQUIgk9LgXwPrCWBL4oygQsoAYl7gVMXgUA/gRGDEj6HToJ?= =?us-ascii?q?YBIshgjuMY40aCQKCCZJWI4IUhkyNDoMgiRSVCgIRFYEwIAE2gVdwFYMngka?= =?us-ascii?q?OCgFBMY9OgSEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,474,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="558124501"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 May 2019 20:54:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4FKsdEa030333 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 May 2019 20:54:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 15 May 2019 16:54:38 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Wed, 15 May 2019 16:54:38 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHVC1UKCmTTd5q9QEOBEyxiozCk46ZsoLCggABHfID//8HSMA==
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 20:54:38 +0000
Message-ID: <d5aaf69b8654481eb25b4026aaa59844@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <155794878921.30587.14812046146231301278.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e6ad880c702c4084a68da513c1a93982@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3365E93@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3365E93@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.154, xch-rtp-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ce-kw8GOOsTzj9q7-8GjZ2ebSuU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 20:54:44 -0000

Posted as v21.

> From: Roman Danyliw, May 15, 2019 4:37 PM
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:evoit@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:34 PM
> > To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>;; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> > Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org; Kent
> > Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>;; netconf-chairs@ietf.org;
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > 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