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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 3/8/2018 2:15 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>>     .
>>
>
>