Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5DC126CE8; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:35:20 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 vYF7cPm_fiAA; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DFE126CD6; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:35:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11461; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520516118; x=1521725718; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=AtmuwvX391ePeGqAvFqEXn/Df6P2e6UsJW03bMtcpBM=; b=QGU7fkW3HS0QNjZ3h7XIbAbWGjfhC1ny7LlchnIuCRTTpdUuucsUbfoR 56Gj/Ppgg9DYppHE8Y6rv8bkcXMNWqjTUb9HaDBrTtmpNWIc9/aR2pOVg j3+Pvhe7f6C2zAXH9Z9mLLLM90waH1DxtajcuypafQPFYqdtWPHgA3MXd s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B6AQCDO6Fa/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMjgRNvKINQixGOXyeBFo8IhSEUggEKI4MygVACgys2FgECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAmsnhSQBBR0GVhAJAg4KJwMCAkYRBg0GAgEBBYUQD40enW2CJiaES4N5g?= =?us-ascii?q?h2FNYQEgg8MgniDDiACAQIBgToBEgEJgx+CYgSIG5I0CYZJihgHgWOENIJzhVe?= =?us-ascii?q?JeYFMhgKBLCUFLGFYEQgzGggbFTqCQwmBb2tuAQhvPzcBiSyCOQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,441,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217";a="2504434"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2018 13:35:14 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w28DZDt3012260; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:35:14 GMT
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <152046870822.21375.9758886257105070758.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <bff5044b-45ef-61c6-c30d-2cfe02c3bfb3@cisco.com> <CABcZeBO7n2GPOJ0+XajiU8w4RDEWoAOQ7dzxw+yh0NKcfw6m5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7ab30e1e-6710-444e-4b51-d9b854502883@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:35:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO7n2GPOJ0+XajiU8w4RDEWoAOQ7dzxw+yh0NKcfw6m5g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0BF63CA7987A5EFCADCDFE5F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/CvjAnhY6hBY26-yYa-qdmjcxpsg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:35:21 -0000

On 3/8/2018 2:15 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com 
> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     Eric,
>>     Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>>     draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: No Objection
>>
>>     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 tohttps://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>     <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-netmod-syslog-model/
>>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     COMMENT:
>>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D4614
>>     <https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D4614>
>>
>>     It's not a problem with this document, but I took a quick look at
>>     draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server and I've got some concerns. Here are a few
>>     examples:
>>
>>     - You can set the cipher suite but not key sizes and groups You can
>>     - say sort of incoherent things in TLS like "I support TLS 1.0 and TLS
>>       1.2 but not TLS 1.1" (there is no way to negotiate this in TLS 1.2)
>>
>>     I'll try to get a chance to give this a real review, but I wanted to mention it
>>     before I forgot.
>>
>>         We are using definitions of syslog protocol from [RFC5424] in this
>>         RFC.
>>     Not a big deal, but this introduction feels like it ought to say what the
>>     document is about, not just about syslog.
>>
>>         The severity is one of type syslog-severity, all severities, or none.
>>         None is a special case that can be used to disable a filter.  When
>>         filtering severity, the default comparison is that messages of the
>>     This seems to be the first use of the term filter to mean this entity
>     I'm not sure I understand the call for action here.
>     In the YANG module, we called this facility-filter:
>
>
> The introductory text here says:
>
> "
>
>    Within each action, a selector is used to filter syslog messages.  A
>    selector consists of a list of one or more facility-severity matches,
>    and, if supported via the select-match feature, an optional regular
>    expression pattern match that is performed on the [RFC5424] field."
>
> Perhaps"
>
> "A selector consists of a list of one or more filters specified by
> facility-severity pairs and, if supported..."
Got it. That makes sense.

>
>
>            container facility-filter {
>
>               description
>                 "This container describes the syslog filter parameters.";
>               list facility-list {
>                 ...
>
>>               subtree, implementations MUST NOT specify a private key that is
>>               used for any other purpose.
>>     It seems like the data that syslog writes is sensitive, so the ability to write
>>     a destination reflects a high degree of risk.
>     Again, what is the call for action here?
>
>
> That the text say that writing those fields is dangerous. This is 
> related to the secdir review comment that Kathleenamplifies in her 
> comment.
Ack.


Regards, Benoit
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>     Regards, B.
>>     .
>>
>
>