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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 142233A0B13; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 yWe0uiq563bJ; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 645443A0B0F; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1E4A12CFDE9D234267ED; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:25:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.187) by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.187) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:25:47 +0100
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.187) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:25:47 +0100
Received: from DGGEML531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.132]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:25:41 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
CC: netmod-chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default <draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>, netmod <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: AdYln7iwAzZrMJvDROye81CUt2Ni7AB9f3ngAAB89G4=
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:25:41 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD6A6892@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD68DE17@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>, <MN2PR11MB4366CEB1EEBAA3EB1B39A659B5A10@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4366CEB1EEBAA3EB1B39A659B5A10@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD6A6892dggeml531mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/mpkAkJxl5bHwlMyx3QUvigAeWCk>
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 13:25:59 -0000

Yes, Rob, all comments are addressed in v-15, ready to go, I believe.
发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton)<rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>
收件人: Qin Wu<bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
抄送: netmod-chairs<netmod-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-chairs@ietf.org>>;Kent Watsen<kent+ietf@watsen.net<mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>>;draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default<draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>>;netmod<netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>;The IESG<iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>
主题: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
时间: 2020-05-11 21:15:16

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.