Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 CF0623A0AAF; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 header.b=HE7RQlXw; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=quqvh/qN
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 Kdb4VAKA6NKd; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1BF83A0AAB; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12628; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589202895; x=1590412495; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zc2QPZs4oNxo39abuIHQN8mP1PxMq9LVGOWgGjhAim8=; b=HE7RQlXwfDhZN0PfyJ3sV4h+XbmlW/imUesxkoWwHV8egD5OnrkL6S8v qlXDFJm3lUISEItgaeU1NSAUKhsZP0aj0j5k3wQwzAQwbypVdGz0oL3EG 7619zKtvjhL2lKG68CRjbNLUQW80nXOReDxz6bXB6gnKtEP7uex+dfe6T E=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AYySNPxMjlrPczxSH+Mgl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEvKwz3l/UVJrW6rRPjO+F+6zjWGlV55GHvThCdZFXTB?= =?us-ascii?q?YKhI0QmBBoG8+KD0D3bZuIJyw3FchPThlpqne8N0UGGNv3eFDT5Ha16G1aFh?= =?us-ascii?q?D2LwEgIOPzF8bbhNi20Obn/ZrVbk1IiTOxbKk0Ig+xqFDat9Idhs1pLaNixw?= =?us-ascii?q?=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKAAA5T7le/5JdJa1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgTMHAQELAYFTUQVvWC8sCoQag0YDhFiIaZg3gS4UgRADVAs?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEMAQEjCgIEAQGERAIXgXckNAkOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYUqCCQMhXE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAgESEREMAQE3AQQHBAIBBgIOAwQBAQMCIwMCAgIwFAEICAEBBA4FCBq?= =?us-ascii?q?DBYJLAw4gAQMLkiKQZwKBOYhhdoEygwEBAQWBRkGDHhiCDgMGgQ4qAYJiiWE?= =?us-ascii?q?agUE/gRFDgk0+gmcCAQIBgSwBEgEIGxWCfTOCLY5KMIJYoR0KgkqIG4s/hGu?= =?us-ascii?q?CXIhnhQGHR4UvmXeTUAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUjlmWBEHcBWDJFAYDYEajyYMFxW?= =?us-ascii?q?DOoUUhUJ0AgsqAgYBBwEBAwl8jHcBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,380,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="490758962"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 May 2020 13:14:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04BDEran013084 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14:53 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:14:53 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:14:53 -0500
Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:14:53 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=UC60qkXFptagRm/ak01zSQxZO8x/86SyRYaWI95kPMPShTcgGxKBKc5+8q8dbdJBTi60fuvgTaQbCXhiNMBWuO5QPHtNzqZsfXFYeNZOKvW4iQOHF8aEeP+5P2ZuEluSJvTiQMRoVwI4c9LxlJRQROm4Spu03+wCSdBlnYNOignOvwlrNcTVigTEEYR9CZnJEfg2yd5+S3zwe2ZyLDngEKlS+aeTVDWPOG6aKlviGvr6NoR+67QBpdKxqbRSF3EBiJIOUOeDEs4OSq4PkuCmgAAKExdXyfvTph2M1KhVloFlAQ0YidJ7Vdhla1aURwZyTH6FngwKs7knjv6nrXGofA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zc2QPZs4oNxo39abuIHQN8mP1PxMq9LVGOWgGjhAim8=; b=jbSnjBBti/jeFT81jLwhy+cmqsM/urb4LWqEEmfo8davgi4idHla6tmMxyh/QxNPhNqvC1p4U8sgrmQjc8nbUV1eoavpkjTPTtWwPXipGKNY/BfEybVuJqOWCVTTqlRFGR7gSTWmF5fIdZu4Qfqj0tDHmCy4OmtMcbpiK5rAn7tz6sKA2cVE8oP0OHepuFbrYK+Oq3pALYOlkzvMyZJdnb5ltMr8wZpq3tV1b1Gr51UAvCD3iZtX+Jq5IQf6lymcFtbK8mZUTx9KccATzYJC1TEn858E79toDBG1BzH6L9GQ5hTRkE6+NyeroMaMmYjxnd6w+peC9mv2NHnlw/+xmQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zc2QPZs4oNxo39abuIHQN8mP1PxMq9LVGOWgGjhAim8=; b=quqvh/qNyHgVf0ePecrZsgXQZ76gdPHjrpBZRQktmoFNCcngvRfRc0UNPA3OpYbYHeKAnocgYjR+ah0MoGa5AKRs9Tka+CLFTvpOXBepXYVFmJ+dUhQAnPmObbwKLPuQUmvNG90iD/22dQw6m8RXJrvzHSmy5Tcq5old/0gDE/M=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by MN2PR11MB3582.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:ec::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.34; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14:52 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3:2164:a8e2:33b3]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3:2164:a8e2:33b3%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.033; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14:52 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
CC: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AdYln7iwAzZrMJvDROye81CUt2Ni7AB9f3ng
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14:51 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB4366CEB1EEBAA3EB1B39A659B5A10@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD68DE17@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD68DE17@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [82.15.79.32]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 737a9603-7e8f-4789-17d0-08d7f5ad4a55
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3582:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3582D2D23C1273059D1BC651B5A10@MN2PR11MB3582.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 04004D94E2
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: IKIlsfOvRlZ0Wurvhob/rni58/u4GNb50VlnQG1LafWz61wyP+ladT4bCNy5tG5k2MYTSsneZ78BhwOFZ9uQT6SGp+fq/FNY6wwWRqkOHZVzN+NZddE8XSoFCN4+rnWghb02dL1vzv3fRYyGu+U8Z6b3+y74SErwkPhoJuujl3i4pHjm/gUt6CVC4nk87jvWfSafq2dia1d+Mg7Iq+qYd23HcTbucUJrmDvG/2XkOKyemQexa1zm3jowt+0B0hAS7xC6Nb82Gw5NUX9D8mCXqBCcVH0Rih7NCRVPKYzYpsEkEnvjrXqA6l0c34sa3hme3fheh6D1lTJq8kmzIkfGKOocOBFjbqdvMDQuU0MoWPg1QIr+cBGvzInuOPfttS61d8q19KCzbSOvVK9V899cvEZ91+7odyMogcgptpJYj1ogBmWGSntViJZJTH94Wvi7XtZpxOWz8Nl8YkAEiGKsIzj5lCK6lFTuKVz9PimcZSlriBOg6Yobig+wDzMUUXb8lyxa5mF47tILSeJeUTfy1oCXyrPrzpJU1r+fTlTAyNiiP8irMyEnv6hmPbAQqSRySO6053y4UstvS8BERlY/h/3s1jEbqikWSkprru1ehbs=
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(33430700001)(66446008)(2906002)(52536014)(33440700001)(66556008)(54906003)(4326008)(316002)(64756008)(966005)(66476007)(76116006)(8676002)(66946007)(478600001)(9686003)(55016002)(6506007)(5660300002)(8936002)(26005)(71200400001)(33656002)(186003)(6916009)(86362001)(7696005)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 0BPFXORRClbkl9twfFrNw3v+Zmgtl8O6lgl8r7rGDvCZ4pktVymFDSMNBL9VThMKcQHs3U36DDDAoSne34vBtwaJAbF7TLg+wV7bMYYs6PwlVSvxXLuWKlJSpkt6WgSyjT5JdJXCUYhnrbEmYZJlGPRWk3dHYiVGLNcG5vKY34xdeFpqsH+quAHdC5HR4clqcN7n/a8+461tSxGTBVpxDdb5OfZ2WYUYfP+iquL4rOwp+Ax46ZjtZu85fDa/oGmwNAXAZQA9+J3Z/1YEPolQp/TsbT2maOk0HBX67jfhxCvje8tjPqj6BYbU35UMgGlhZXTqYRsj9r/Uxg6my8WxedlQW5cHy5+tamGGmiNEtoHEUjV1t09BGHxP2brZ/8mOWrrZtd84sI5zlEA30ll7iaW6MixPyrFOVLVrx9KATpaUWg7H9ZIFGuH/Sghw3CSMVKz3HkRkIe4lYVIbhoCr+z1lgmrB/tAeExALVX+rGtE=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 737a9603-7e8f-4789-17d0-08d7f5ad4a55
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 May 2020 13:14:51.9643 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: C1xFaF4qDzpLVhldr1Avq9+1A1hriiGzemiZb+PwNpZd5bR/NnKOECRnacvwjrPlgKh6o0OdXx/mn3RoMyi80Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3582
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MFuUPCS9e9bl9w9fVjgW7NknpRM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:14:58 -0000

Qin,

Please can you confirm that -15 addresses all IESG comments and directorate review comments, and this version is ready to go.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> Sent: 09 May 2020 02:19
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>rg>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; draft-
> ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; The IESG
> <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-
> 14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks Roman.
> 
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Roman Danyliw [mailto:rdd@cert.org]
> 发送时间: 2020年5月9日 4:16
> 收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <rwilton@cisco.com>
> 抄送: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; draft-
> ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; The IESG
> <iesg@ietf.org>
> 主题: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Qin!
> 
> Top posting to say thanks for the updated texted that was added to -15.
> It addresses my DISCUSS points.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:00 PM
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; Roman Danyliw
> > <rdd@cert.org>
> > Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>;
> > draft-ietf- netmod-factory-default@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; The IESG
> > <iesg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-
> default-14:
> > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
> > 发送时间: 2020年4月25日 0:54
> > 收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> > 抄送: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; draft-
> > ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; The IESG
> > <iesg@ietf.org>
> > 主题: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-
> 14:
> > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Qin,
> >
> > This document was discussed today.  I think that Roman plans to follow
> > up regarding the security considerations discuss.
> >
> > From the discussion today, and reading the Discuss, my understanding
> > is that Roman has two concerns that are more about the specific text
> > than the use of the template:
> >
> > 1) Concerns read access to the factory-default datastore which could
> > contain sensitive information.  Perhaps read access to that datastore
> > should default to nacm:default-deny-all?  If so, then this should
> > probably be documented in section 3, with a sentence in section 6 to
> explain that is how it is protected.
> >
> > [Qin]: Please See Jurgen and Andy's comment in this thread, I agree
> > with Jurgen we should treat factory in the same way as running and
> > other datastores. If any text is needed, I could add a few text in the
> > section 6 based on the discussion in this thread:
> > "
> > Access to the "factory-reset" RPC operation and factory default values
> > of all configuration data nodes within "factory-default" datastore is
> > considered sensitive and therefore has been restricted using the
> > "default-deny-all" access control defined in [RFC8341].
> > "
> > 2) The second point is asking to expand this paragraph:
> >
> >    The operational disruption caused by setting the config to factory
> >    default contents varies greatly depending on the implementation and
> >    current config.
> >
> > Such that the description also covers "Please note that a default
> > configuration could be insecure or not have security controls enabled
> > whereby exposing the network to compromise."
> >
> > [Qin]:So we will see exposing factory default configuration to the
> > network to compromise also as one kind of operational disruption, if
> > this is true, here is the proposed change:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > "
> >    The operational disruption caused by setting the config to factory
> >    default contents varies greatly depending on the implementation and
> >    current config.
> > "
> > NEW TEXT:
> > "
> > The operational disruption caused by setting the config to factory
> > default contents or lacking appropriate security control on factory
> > default configuration varies greatly depending on the implementation
> > and current config.
> > "
> > If not, please advise.
> >
> > I see that you are already addressing the other comments that have
> > been raised.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Qin Wu
> > > Sent: 21 April 2020 14:20
> > > To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>rg>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > > Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>;
> > > draft- ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
> > > draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-
> > > 14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Hi, Roman:
> > > A few clarification inline below.
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> > > 发送时间: 2020年4月21日 20:52
> > > 收件人: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > > 抄送: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org;
> > > netmod-chairs@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; Kent Watsen
> > > <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; kent+ietf@watsen.net
> > > 主题: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14:
> > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: Discuss
> > >
> > > 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 to
> > > 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-factory-default/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > Please use YANG security considerations template from
> > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines.
> > > Specifically (as a DISCUSS item):
> > >
> > > ** (Per the template questions “for all YANG modules you must
> > > evaluate whether any readable data”) Would factory-default contain
> > > any sensitive information in certain network environments where the
> > > ACLs should be more restrictive that world readable for everyone?
> > > [Qin]: It does follows yang-security-guidelines but there is no
> > > readable data node defined within rpc, that's why we don't use third
> > > paragraph boilerplate and fourth paragraph boilerplate of
> > > yang-security-
> > guidelines.
> > > YANG-security-guidelines are more applicable to YANG data model with
> > > more readable/writable data nodes.
> > > In addition, as clarified in the second paragraph, section 6 of this
> > > draft, NACM can be used to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
> > > RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
> > > RESTCONF protocol operations (i.e., factory-reset rpc)
> > >
> > > Per “The operational disruption caused by setting the config to
> > > factory default contents varies greatly depending on the
> > > implementation and current config”, it seems like it could be worse
> > > than just an operational disruption.  Please note that a default
> > > configuration could be insecure or not have security controls
> > > enabled whereby exposing the network to compromise.
> > >
> > > [Qin]: As described in the second paragraph of section 6 it by
> > > default restrict access for everyone by using the "default-deny-all"
> > > access control defined [RFC8341], what else does it need to address
> > > this security concern?
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > COMMENT:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > Please use YANG security considerations template from
> > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines.
> > > Specifically (as a COMMENT item):
> > >
> > > ** Add “The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM)
> > > [RFC8341] provides the means to …”
> > >
> > > [Qin]: We did follow this template, I am wondering how it is
> > > different from the second paragraph of section 6? I see they are
> > > equivalent but with more fine granularity security measures, if my
> understanding is correct.