Re: [Panic] Scope Draft is Available

Panos, thanks for providing text.

We have participants that are approaching this problem space that are accustomed to using endpoint and network element. How about the following introduction text to draw an equivalence between these terms?

Network operators need to know what is connected to their organization's networks so that they can properly manage those network elements. Managing these network elements, consisting of physical and virtual network infrastructure devices, requires access to information pertaining to these endpoint devices, including device identity, the identity of software installed on the endpoint, and the configuration setting values for the installed software. This information can be collected from different classes of endpoints over different protocols and using different data models. PANIC will identify a standardized solution to collect posture information for network devices, and allow that information to be shared with authorized users and devices on the network supporting security automation. PANIC aims to reuse available standards for posture assessment where possible. The PANIC effort will avoid redefining information exchange technologies for use cases that have already been defined.

Also, I added your text to the security considerations section. I will post this in the -02 revision once we sort out the Introduction.

Thanks,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:pkampana@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:30 PM
> To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire@nist.gov>; Panic@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scope Draft is Available
> 
> ACK. Below some proposed text:
> 
> For the Security Considerations Section:
>    Further discussion here will address the threat introduced to the network
> elements by the posture information collection. There should be protections
> implemented to prevent the element from being vulnerable to DoS attacks
> by frequent polling or pushing of posture data.
> 
> For the Introduction Section:
>    ...automation. PANIC aims to reuse available standards for posture
> assessment where possible. It will avoid redefining info exchange
> technologies for usecases that have already been defined.
> 
> For the Introduction Section:
>    ...manage those
>    endpoints. Endpoints / Elements include hardware, software of virtual
> network infrastructure devices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hardware, software or virtual (NFV fails in this
> > category)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) [mailto:david.waltermire@nist.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:59 AM
> To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>; Panic@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scope Draft is Available
> 
> Panos,
> 
> Thank you for providing feedback on the PANIC scope draft.
> 
> Comments are inline below.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:pkampana@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:37 AM
> > To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire@nist.gov>;
> > Panic@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Scope Draft is Available
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > The document is clear.
> >
> > One semantic objection I have is about the use of the word endpoint. I
> > believe the term is commonly used for user machines (laptops, cells,
> > tablets) . Network element or element is a little clearer.
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight. I am happy to go either way (e.g., endpoint,
> network element) if there is a preference in the group for one term or the
> other. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
> 
> > A susggestion: The security section could mention the importance of
> > not introducing security concerns with the posture info collection.
> > For example a device should not be DoSable by too many polls, or it
> > should not push often enough that would introduce performance concerns
> etc.
> 
> I think this is a good idea. Do you have some text in mind to drop in?
> 
> > I think it will also be beneficial to be explicit about the types of
> > network elements. In the broad technologies that exist today, these
> > elements could be hardware, software or virtual (NFV fails in this
> > category). All of those should be in scope for this work.
> 
> All of these are in scope in my view.
> 
> > Side comment: I would like this standardization effort to try to reuse
> > data formats and transports wherever possible and not come up with new
> > posture information descriptions. I think this is a common goal that
> > SACM has as well.
> 
> I share this goal as well. Should we document this in the draft?
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Panos
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Panic [mailto:panic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Waltermire,
> > David A. (Fed)
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:03 AM
> > To: Panic@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Panic] Scope Draft is Available
> >
> > Welcome to the posture assessment through network information
> > collection
> > (PANIC) email list. At the side meeting on March 29th, we started
> > discussing the problem of how to measure the health of network
> > devices. We discussed the need to collect posture information from
> > network devices to support asset, software, vulnerability, and
> > configuration management use cases. We were asked by the group to
> > share a more detailed description of the intended scope for the PANIC
> > effort. The follow draft is an attempt to do
> > so:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-waltermire-panic-scope/
> >
> > We would appreciate review of and comments on this draft. At this
> > point, we want to know if the this scope clearly defines the problem to be
> solved.
> > Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns, or if you
> > think the scope draft is adequate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Waltermire
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Panic mailing list
> > Panic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/panic