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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Benoit Claise <[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 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:
>

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..."


       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.

-Ekr


> Regards, B.
>
> .
>
>
>
>