Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Wed, 06 October 2010 09:50 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795293A6C84 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP2J6HM5bO20 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trail.lhotka.cesnet.cz (trail.lhotka.cesnet.cz [195.113.161.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C623A6E45 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (nomad.w2lan.cesnet.cz [195.113.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by trail.lhotka.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BA9C3E01F5; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:42:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101003205540.GA16936@elstar.local>
References: <CB69B162C87647AE97AB749466633F54@BertLaptop> <4C9B3E60.5030000@bwijnen.net> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640106532D@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <20101003172455.GA16616@elstar.local> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640106533B@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <20101003205540.GA16936@elstar.local>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-59-g676d251 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:42:03 +0200
Message-ID: <87y6abodxw.fsf@cesnet.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Oct 2010 09:50:15 -0000
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:55:40 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:42:25PM +0200, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > > > > Section 9. Security Considerations > > > > > > > > I would suggest to add a few sentences for the EOM handling > > > > and the possible thread concerning section 3. It would be > > > > interesting to recommend a possible reaction if this happens > > > > frequently, e.g. to drop the NETCONF session. > > > > > > 4741bis does not have an EOM marker - so how can we discuss it in > > > the security considerations? > > > > EOM handling is for sure not part of NETCONF but the possible > > thread concerning EOM handling is. I think security considerations > > section should discuss the related security thread, as we did on > > NETCONF ML with a long mail thread. > > There is no EOM issue if you run NETCONF over BEEP. We should stick to > modularity and discuss things where they belong. Perhaps you want > different text than the one I currently image you want... SSH is the *mandatory* transport, so any appearance of ']]>]]>' in the Messages, Operation or Content layer necessarily has an impact on operation and is a potential security hole. So I agree with Mehmet that 4741bis should not dismiss this issue completely. The protocol modularity has been damaged by the unfortunate EOM choice. Apart from Security Considerations, text in Sec. 3 should be changed as follows: OLD All NETCONF messages MUST be well-formed XML, encoded in UTF-8. NEW All NETCONF messages MUST be well-formed XML, encoded in UTF-8, and MUST NOT contain the character sequence ']]>]]>'. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- [Netconf] 2-week WG Last Call for: draft-ietf-net… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended f… Bert (IETF) Wijnen
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Phil Shafer
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andrew Stone
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call end… Andrew Stone