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

Kent Watsen <> Wed, 09 October 2019 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DDB12018D for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpqL4irxmkh1 for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA45120145 for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1570636889; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=RcUDhz1P3nzz+OCvB8A13+Eo7MF1wEEd+3fjmr2ho6E=; b=jgkDCGD/R55ozbMrryznzaOgaM/fPVoSOgb0mEB9QCXYI8qC0Nz9Yf6KAyFlEyn8 +uZfXeYovXXYmWMPuKEKZ1HS3DSMKJ3G/2gtyad9q8foQ7yErNDUeTx+W2K/jRHlX4o lFxX7gRHV4qowX7UR47dHrPDGFjfcvAvVBRU7sNo=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_54815D30-8FB5-488F-BC5E-E03A1B28AB5A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:01:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>, Mahesh Jethanandani <>, Alexander Clemm <>, Benoit Claise <>, "" <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs_Lengyel?= <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.10.09-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:01:34 -0000

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