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 08:41 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 1B03A12426E; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:41:49 -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 j5fg3ZEPI_oL; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D574B1205F0; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:41:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6187; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520498506; x=1521708106; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=gxoZunhq1RLFySMorQuTLykNk8JowW6PZEzQ/0V2hpE=; b=aytzX6/bbGcMxeObs5CWHKUzL1O/5Q5DTQGskFxoYuSmP3eu1uPHersG /16FYHE6+kKC12xT4S1UEx9yBJe04JYnI2VpqZSMwzr8veTbH5OtB2c+1 nmVJ6notFMsbQwyvkUzjnkSwFQ0iDvh4AO4eK1Ju5NaABcZrZj88Hup+v k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B2AQBO9qBa/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMjgRNvKINQixGPB4EWjwiFNYIBCiOFAgKDKzgUAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CayeFJAEEAR0GVhALDjQCAlcGAQwIAQGFDQgPq0SCJiaES4N5ghgFhTWEBIIPg?= =?us-ascii?q?wSDLgIBAgGBOgESAQmDH4JiBIgbkjQJhkmKGAeBY4Q0gnOFV4l5gUyGAoEsNSF?= =?us-ascii?q?hWBEIMxoIGxU6gkOCY24BCG8/NwGJLII5AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,440,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217";a="2446919"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2018 08:41:43 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w288fhdT030248; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:41:43 GMT
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, kwatsen@juniper.net, draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <152046870822.21375.9758886257105070758.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <bff5044b-45ef-61c6-c30d-2cfe02c3bfb3@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:41:43 +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: <152046870822.21375.9758886257105070758.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9C2C8BCFDA3AB85AD801E5F4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cVc7RhnDGJ_H2i0sUyaIm-BYiYg>
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 08:41:49 -0000

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 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-syslog-model/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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:

        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?

Regards, B.
>
>
> .
>