Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Thu, 14 September 2017 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 493FB132D44; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 zQeKAq-MRpdP; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 690AB132713; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=4zTHqvLBUBCwh9xb+MBZQ32hixjAVkgHA1nuLBKDD8U=; b=ARhF1fSyb4qIAGv1eN0IApxA2ubrBx4NW9bvIEpP03EXxmXfAxyGYw1jw8+6HySdCzm1MUyKpFIm80W44vIZxsNWsMNGlBf+o9auV/MAhQnKePtHd98zFNM3mfj+4Bc8G9EFLUf08fqwbtGMSH4ov0OiDtU0cA24np5mxlRTfns=
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.149) by BLUPR05MB274.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.35.3; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:26:38 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) by BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) with mapi id 15.20.0035.010; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:26:37 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Thread-Index: AQHTLHc0HPi1rZXCNUadzeG98awlR6KyydeAgAFxGQD///QHgA==
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:26:37 +0000
Message-ID: <47A12DBB-BEF6-41D2-BC38-E08AB7AFB44B@juniper.net>
References: <49B4BE2F-6912-49BE-9E4A-830146309AB2@juniper.net> <019b01d32c76$fa7dfc40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8CF097E4-CEB7-4C4E-AC7D-F7F896CD1BB7@juniper.net> <516d3881-4fbb-fad0-5413-404f644ea63b@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <516d3881-4fbb-fad0-5413-404f644ea63b@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB274; 6:V/QpotJFGpv12JdiMhYihCPVXuduUDuYTFoXS5yQpVdbF7kAuVS1FoFUO6DNcizKCffJipMEB3kVFl21Xc4bfa91zDOUwwGCrQlQfQ1yudtZibCrzVd7PdCHUby/Ilnx3mGK94YurstjtyNQODjjgFmbAQwQelZ7knCms7bWOvdbpJChsiNGhSDclxRe9viQ4I/fnFGeIlx5xJBgdWj20jbqri5YDuoM0b8bt95yrfza7HOl39J10fX9nlM1HdG5bzjlj20oqDVv0ahTrRQLljBf696FhqQiAZ07p2B52OwdfFW4HlMb5jheykUUxV7uqhGszWgq+cIBYRelXAunmA==; 5:K8ggcuXlyCiGeFuGXGPTFVq/p813nJvORdAOPIVx6HWhBtd7HlYsR5cqL1SIqTI+9RVf+ggRZ6RgEhMJZCTNIkdczGLmVJxvVn8el8UQufvBjtZP8jkdXZjUFO3hP7CtsCTSMkhsUYTFeAV0H2RKfw==; 24:H7Wb6X8RbAOImQq9VATCULcWpiLutY3IhCCi6c8/k9nIWIr5eoYmtePingPh3N7ptoGpeO6cuRd49w0CUog9MjfNh3KkGAhmRgOWTYCVAV0=; 7:66ruO6+7H+pdU2q4JCByMkMwFxrA3I9lO0mtBH0E3PwDGgg3gyG7pL+liBpl19SlZ3OJD3HhiRoqSqlcXGurKFrENRn+adVfn41tyFX2Hh79N6J3HAWvLDLvbOvze2CgQUcCvHK/2n/4m2Q66+yxKWkRCrSk1Ni3YuI0fe3px1sVUXe+Q9OuLytRercdPRRFO95pzt7ldVusP0P0N5wCeGqcL9IYcqQnunaV2vfZwrk=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0417c828-1d74-4411-a402-08d4fb7c9bf8
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(48565401081)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603199)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB274;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR05MB274:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(138986009662008);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR05MB274F058A59323CEB06049C6A56F0@BLUPR05MB274.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(100000703101)(100105400095)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB274; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB274;
x-forefront-prvs: 0430FA5CB7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(209900001)(199003)(24454002)(377454003)(13464003)(189002)(189998001)(478600001)(230783001)(86362001)(2950100002)(4326008)(6506006)(106356001)(101416001)(25786009)(81166006)(68736007)(54356999)(575784001)(8676002)(6116002)(102836003)(8936002)(229853002)(3846002)(81156014)(66066001)(5660300001)(76176999)(83716003)(99286003)(2906002)(2501003)(8666007)(83506001)(3660700001)(3280700002)(36756003)(4001350100001)(53936002)(77096006)(7736002)(2900100001)(53546010)(33656002)(6486002)(97736004)(93886005)(82746002)(305945005)(6246003)(6436002)(6512007)(50986999)(14454004)(6306002)(316002)(105586002)(966005)(6606295002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB274; H:BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B2D6827382D1A942A1F363604E4F6F8A@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Sep 2017 14:26:37.5487 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB274
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/GusXwI7XEpHtOUJpLzwE9GUNa-k>
Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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, 14 Sep 2017 14:26:43 -0000

Good suggestion, Rob.  This might also have come up in the SecDir review.

Separately, Juergen had a suggestion to add an "observation" (since a "warning" seems too strong) that use of POSIX regex precludes UTF8 support.  Makes sense?  FWIW, the module is fine as is, since the regex is under a feature statement, which allows a future effort add another regex-feature if ever needed.

Clyde, since these are not technical changes, and assuming that there is no objection, you can make these two tweaks as well.  Otherwise, I can add notes about these in the shepherd writeup.

Kent

--

Hi Kent, Clyde,

Does the "pattern-match" leaf need to be explicitly pulled out in 
security considerations?  Allowing a client to provide an arbitrary 
regex could potentially cause a regex engine to overflow its stack and 
crash.

An example of an regex overflow is described here: 
http://www.regular-expressions.info/catastrophic.html

Thanks,
Rob


On 13/09/2017 18:08, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks.  The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf
> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1
> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.
>
> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but figured
> that the RFC Editor would get it.
>
> K. // shepherd
>
>
> --
>
> Kent
>
> You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but not used
> anywhere in the document.  In the Descriptions, but not in the s.4.1
> references, I see
>
> This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ...
>
> twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue.
>
> Back in July, clyde said
> "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the next
> revision of the draft."
>
> In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but nowhere
> else.
>
> As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by RFC6991 so
> should not be.
>
> And in a slightly different vein,
>
>     registry [RFC7895]/>.  Following the format in [RFC7950]/>, the the
>
> looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'..
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> To: <netmod@ietf.org>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM
> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues
>
>
>> Clyde, all,
>>
>> In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following
> issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent
> to Benoit for AD review:
>>
>> 1. Idnits found the following:
>>
>>    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment
> (--).
>>      ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
> longest one
>>           being 3 characters in excess of 72.
>>
>>      ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC 6991)
>>
>>      ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
>>
>>      == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but not
> defined
>>           '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....'
>>
>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no
> explicit
>>            reference was found in the text
>>            '[RFC7895]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG
> Module L...'
>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no
> explicit
>>            reference was found in the text
>>            '[RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over
> Secure Sh...'
>>
>> 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang",  which is missing
> "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name
>> 3.  neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with
> ietf-syslog.yang.    pyang says
>>        for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must have
> a "description"
>>        substatement.
>>
>> 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
>>        - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config)
>>        - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this
> error.
>> 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this
> SHOULD be a
>>       domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
>>
>> 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a
> 'description' statement,
>>       there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC.
>>
>> 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they
> point at, they now all
>>       just say "leafref".  Did you do this on purpose, or are you using
> a different tree
>>       output generator from -15?
>>
>> 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably should
> be informative.
>> 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not
> used anywhere in the document.
>> 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not used
> anywhere in the document.
>> 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to
> ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server.
>>          Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]"
> references…
>> 12.  The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric.  Either put
> both registry insertions into
>>          subsections, or keep them both at the top-level…
>>
>> 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I have
> the following responses.  Let's be sure to close out these items as
> well.  Ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11
> s-0gOfCe8NSE
>> 1. ok
>> 2. better
>> 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/  [RFC Editor might've
> caught this]
>> 4. better
>> 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
>> 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only
> when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
>> 7. fixed
>> 8. fixed
>> 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying...
>> 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among them
>> 11. better
>> 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right?
>> 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation"
>> 14. fixed
>> 15. fixed
>> 16. fixed
>> 17. fine
>> 18. still a weird line brake here.  try putting the quoted string on
> the next line.
>> 19. fixed
>> 20. fixed
>> 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
>> 22. fine
>>
>>
>> PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent  // shepherd & yang doctor
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod