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

Eric Rescorla <> Thu, 08 March 2018 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4A6126CD6 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xcZps5WbdWuJ for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1620126D85 for <>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c7so6640544qtn.3 for <>; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:16:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=P0AgRRztw7FX8yqQ0aJ9K22BrOyhyryLHuwaVvbM8W8=; b=wPeEuza5VxkvcRFhdREHPpQzVP2JI7WtLX/XzN/GgyxZSd7mDQMrjEp/bEH1eZ7AWc +8J7Vu8UboW8MHk1WOkgDJoabXNvpS+EzHaPg2TiOFL2EEo7qBY1mt4Ilymd4kxtiysW pnjr4KyQWtXEpq2Pp6EDLB3XJUzr6Dot0XBBoakY2BZNcrNH5hEImDAt4RNlBSIbdi4/ Vru0iGGbiWxzJxCkNJnRFvSIxvEyKrjDlykgFwVV3YEoNDAmV9HvCc8RuGzxb5hmC5Dj Q3njKyduNDcgOU1gfFX1tystLn05PlGk0Z+MW6yU4DINRUaccfSjeT17iyx28VtfC43B FnBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=P0AgRRztw7FX8yqQ0aJ9K22BrOyhyryLHuwaVvbM8W8=; b=r1YYNj0L0wW9R1fsfXFApp4iLNV65ErVxuTm9BPq0uJwXfNQqv7uMT2ls4VsVci7mc FV96yiz7arDpjFeDnm3aBFh/MzwQiEMCXeIVDet6seppAQVHd0JRVuNfOomao3my2QiY soL6sVi9vd1vvYWU+BSjPjPeZRVLTA7Slk7R6L2/IyPM+UdGe2aBG/TCa/hIqyXEDs9M suEtWWwmL8vUVbpW9ufYJieZmejLonMHi1gfhUOUcUQLg93dVXU7oXfaGf+GlTxUKDA8 LikaQl98fNr/VSJojaWgft6NRu4za4jiRkZkWeOukkutw6SYVnxTog3tRLtFksbEGCYp Xc9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EU+ITbkkG5CG6EtnhZSxLXX5jHBEVxu4zzqmuRYB53uzGXSN6Q bXAxdsxHcKzFCEzj5PlJxAsmqtdNjYuRTohxHJ73nGoGBMk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtVlorPmmCIP5DlO5tCniIIVhba3ZWLYBba9sIySWEdRbfzUjiJ1IwhEvf31nx78Kn2YW0zgcRxMWtxu04ShnQ=
X-Received: by with SMTP id j31mr40889793qte.208.1520514966732; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:16:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:15:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:15:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Benoit Claise <>
Cc: The IESG <>, NetMod WG Chairs <>, Lou Berger <>, Kent Watsen <>,, NetMod WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b7f1877d8f60566e67a7e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:16:12 -0000

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Benoit Claise <> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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."


"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.


> Regards, B.
> .