Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> Thu, 26 July 2018 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9F3130E77; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id owh84WIPpS0S; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E2F81274D0; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6996; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1532564174; x=1533773774; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0gLHBi6SjJtLd3Gy+lpDcrFASjgIzmYCzluuepNq+Vw=; b=X3HLvI4cLfwxhl7kNKIqCnLc2HTurdC5YivcAfwAqN2e0VHKvbWNnJkT isZ7G58QSPI8jbshGvZGPfAC/hf+PHZuu1BqtqbQMp5B0wxKCxYrkDfyk vFVFmf+R0TNVUKjm6kmMSU4zilmdwjYMjKMu2IYf7Irn6vHzCBwigCI6U 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,402,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="428858382"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2018 00:16:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6Q0G6Ac020667 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:16:06 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:16:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:16:05 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>, Jeffrey Haas <>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:16:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:16:17 -0000

Hi Benjamin and Jeff,

Following our discussion in Montreal, would the following, or something along these lines, be OK with you in the Security Considerations section.

   When BFD clients are used to modify BFD configuration (as described
   in Section 2.1), any authentication and authorization for the BFD
   configuration changes have to take place in the BFD clients.  For
   example, if the BFD client is an IGP then the IGP SHOULD be
   authenticated. Also, consideration should be given to the access control of
   the BFD clients.


On 2018-07-15, 9:05 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <> wrote:

    On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
    > Benjamin,
    > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
    > > "may be overkill in some circumstances" sounds exactly like an RFC 2119
    > > SHOULD, does it not?
    > Putting it slightly a different way, I am always wary of trying to embed too
    > much operational and security wisdom in documents for the following reasons:
    > - What's wise in one set of circumstances may not be in another.  By being
    >   proscriptive, you may lead to implementations that lack necessary
    >   flexibility.
    In my opinion, including guidance with the supporting motivation suffices
    to leave flexibility for unanticipated future cases with differing needs.
    > - You're imposing a level of fate binding between mechanisms that may
    >   contravene desired behaviors from some operators that have split
    >   operational roles.
    If the stated motivation does not apply to operators with such split roles,
    do we not think they are smart enough to see that the prerequisite is not
    met and ignore the advice?
    > [...]
    > > To frame the same idea in a different fashion, we have this nice security
    > > considerations boilerplate for YANG modules, talking about how the usual
    > > access methods are NETCONF/RESTCONF, with MTI secure transport of ssh/TLS.
    > > The scheme being described here is effectively providing a new access
    > > mechanism (IGP) for a subset of the YANG module,
    > This is perhaps my personal disconnect.
    > Much of the point of providing a common configuration grouping for BFD for
    > client protocols was to encapsulate, "I'm a client of BFD, here's my
    > parameters".  An implementation is free to use the "please use bfd with
    > these parameters for my protocol" or perhaps ignore them.  But in
    > circumstances that an operator may wish to limit access to protocol BFD
    > behavior, it has the existing ability in NACM to enforce its policy on those
    > BFD nodes within the protocol tree.
    > What I feel you're saying is we need to call special attention to these
    > instantiations that may be imported by some module.  
    > What I'm confused about is why such an import is any more special than any
    > other import from another module.
    I've been trying to wrap my head around your explanation for the past few
    days, and I'm not sure I'm succeeding at it.  The only reason I'm raising
    this point with this document is because there is text in the document like
    "[f]or example, when a new IGP peer is discovered, the IGP would create a
    BFD session to the newly discovered peer and similarly when an IGP peer
    goes away, the IGP would remove the BFD session to that peer."  Imagine if
    I was writing a document about a device that controls a physical door, and
    the usual way to operate the device is to manually enter a PIN while
    physically in front of the door.  If I also said "some people expose this
    door-unlocking device to the internet and accept unlock requests over
    HTTP", that would be incredibly unresponsible of me unless I added some
    extra qualifier.  Perhaps it would be "and these people are crazy", or
    perhaps "but HTTP itself is insecure, so in such situations TLS ought to be
    used with mutual authentication, authorization checks for the party
    requesting unlocking, and the best practices from RFC 7525".
    So, in my head, I see this document as using a not-quite-throwaway example
    to make a point about the limitations of the main focus of the document,
    and should properly qualify the different security properties of that
    example.  Your description above still reads to me as if it's focusing on
    YANG modules not specified in this document but that also use the same BFD
    grouping.  In such a case, when the NACM applies, isn't that still going
    through normal management paths for that respective YANG module?  I'm still
    trapped in a rut thinking about "received IGP packet from the network that
    instantiates a new IGP session; as a side effect instantiate a BFD session
    as well", where the incoming IGP packet is just the IGP implementation and
    not a "management function" per se.