Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 21:46 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 DD8A01201DA; Mon, 6 May 2019 14:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 nAHpg9TEaToI; Mon, 6 May 2019 14:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD591200A4; Mon, 6 May 2019 14:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3774; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557179191; x=1558388791; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=t6oMIMqZpafrSkkeUuxP4YaTbVAeGkcVD7327x5lwSA=; b=isn0wt5bcQ+JdSFnML7QmUvXbzzeuRuutPXXDp5xR9QHxS6Nb4iLcN+A lO1Q8Usni+Op4JR+m/8x97Xc+eFXFbdEQmo4ma7hITZNDd0nLwBvQian3 GU4AsS743G/k4ZqVF33mOYQ+LwPN3WPHeo4Q+rKYxESTr8/34cGI6I6yt 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAAAGqtBc/5RdJa1lDgwBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBBwIBAQEBgVEFAQEBAQsBgWYqaYEEKAqEBogcjQeYUhSBZw4BASWESAI?= =?us-ascii?q?XgXwjNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBAm0cDIVKAQEBAwEjEUMCBQsCAQgVBQIJFgcCAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?wFRACBAENDYJPTIF7Dw+sSYEvhEZBhSYGgQsnAYtNF4FAP4QjPoJhAgECAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?qARECAYMoglgEixmCOplpCQKCCYYZjCgjgg+GQY0AjB+BIYUsjiQCERWBMB8?= =?us-ascii?q?4ZVgRCHAVgyeCRohMhQQ7QTEBkTiBIQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,439,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="555971013"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 May 2019 21:46:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x46LkUhO007836 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 May 2019 21:46:30 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 6 May 2019 17:46:29 -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; Mon, 6 May 2019 17:46:29 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-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: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVAgv37Q002AfzXk6U6HjHV/fZO6ZeoOmw
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 21:46:29 +0000
Message-ID: <e20edefac3174473a89c012cad4847ec@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <155692784695.7217.908270903914526669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155692784695.7217.908270903914526669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
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: [10.118.56.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.155, xch-rtp-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/g2piDAxuDvsNGctuFy41nPUmY4Y>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 06 May 2019 21:46:46 -0000

Hi Benjamin

> From: Benjamin Kaduk, May 3, 2019 7:57 PM
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-25: Discuss
> 
> 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-netconf-subscribed-notifications/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It looks like the description of filter-failure-hint in modify-subscription-stream-
> error-info needs the same treatment that establish-subscription-stream-error-
> info  received.

Done.  You will see in the next update.  I will post after I get a set of thoughts back from Magnus on his DISCUSS.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [original comment section replaced]
> 
> In the updated security considerations:
> 
>    The replay mechanisms described in Sections Section 2.4.2.1 and
>    Section 2.5.6 provides access to historical event records.  By
>    design, the access control model that protects these records could
>    enable subscribers to view data to which they were not authorized at
>    the time of collection.
> 
> Looks like there's some xml2rfc redundancy ("Sections Section").

Fixed

>    o  "excluded-event-records": leaf can provide information about
>       filtered event records.  A network operator should have
>       permissions to know about such filtering.  Improper configuration
>       could provide a receiver with information leakage consisting of
>       the dropping of event records.
> 
> In mail I had proposed "Improper configuration could allow a receiver to learn
> that event records were dropped due to an ACL when the existence of that ACL
> would otherwise be transparent."; repeating it here just in case it got missed
> (but this  remains the non-blocking comment section).

I had thought your other sentence was for information purposes rather than suggested text to include.  Thinking about it, I prefer just sticking with the current 'information leakage' text without explicitly using the word ACL.  

Thanks again Benjamin for really giving this a good look,
Eric