Re: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

H Balazs,


> BALAZS2: This drafts does not want to define a file format. It intends to use the “generic” file format defined in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format. IMHO the whole aim of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format is to avoid individual drafts defining file formats.

Okay. I see it in Section 3 now.


> On the below:
> 
> 
> I suspect that you will need to do a security analysis per YANG object.   This has been done the other YANG push family.
> BALAZS: The full module is readOnly and not sensitive or private in any manner.  The security text for the readOnly parts of YangPush is the exact same text: not very informative, but gives you the illusion of security awareness.
>  
> I suspect that manipulating the reporting intervals could have some security implications.   E.g., a hacker could push up the damping period or periodic interval to a level where the information they are changing then becomes invisible to a monitoring system.
> BALAZS: The full YAM is read-only so manipulating the data is not a concern.
>  
>  
> The draft should say something like:
>  
> 1. All protocol-accessible are read-only and cannot be modified.  The nature of the read-only data is not deemed to be sensitive in a way necessitating access-control restrictions (e.g., NACM) beyond the client being authenticated.
> BALAZS2: OK,  Updated with first part, but Rob has asked for an extra sentence about the dangers of revealing read-only data, I added that too.
> “All protocol-accessible data are read-only and cannot be modified. 
>         The data in this module is not security sensitive.
>         Access control may be configured, to avoid exposing 
>         the read-only data.”

Okay.  s/protocol-accessible data/protocol-accessible data nodes/


> 2. When a file format, the protection afforded by a mutually authenticated transport protocol.  Protection of the data must be performed manually, so as to ensure that the data is neither seen nor modified in transit.
> Reword as needed.
> BALAZS2: Agreed. This is part of normal file handling, transport. So I reworded this to:
> “When that data is in file format, data should be protected against 
>         modification or unauthorized access using normal file handling and 
>         secure and mutually authenticated file transport mechanisms.”

Okay.  The end can be shortened, i.e., just "file handling mechanisms".


Kent // contributor