IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E968129530; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 sE2vNyLodOeA; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59172129535; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12541; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493303020; x=1494512620; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=VWqwB4U6c4SeK2BwTGDz9FpxlsvtnhIXK2Ndxc5egzo=; b=T2GHIX2mwjXy9arbAlDZW91eHkapR2M7cl2tjeG4zEG0+ZsGXiI5KlzX taF2c3kPhzLMYvBc5QdxckDBDzMcUNsmr3641aQyIVhEisGAKNDdb0B8Z f+suXPj1/PsmGdfpZYE//q7FOCSsgDZ/7fAzqo/tFnuIQlgh1/jMhCrrG I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B2AQCG/gFZ/5NdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm5ngW0Hg2GKGJFKiCKIE4U3gg+GJAIahAE/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAyNWEAIBCA4DAwECKAMCAgIfERQJCAIEAQ0FigUDFaxvgiaHMA2DXwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2IMoMaglOBeDQYgk6CXwWdFTsBjj+ETIICiRyGQIsZiQ0BHziBCm8VhWqBSnUBhlCBL4ENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.37,384,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="20435817"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Apr 2017 14:23:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3RENJIx026638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:23:19 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:23:18 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:23:18 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSvv7NaK6mr1jQpUuQYLHDV2KBn6HYydWAgAARVgCAAKiLAIAAAu6AgAAATQD//76sgA==
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:23:18 +0000
Message-ID: <D5277644.ABE74%acee@cisco.com>
References: <149322447211.30122.5870367500760951821.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f366eb05-b82c-123e-d0ca-8701fe16a469@nostrum.com> <CAHbuEH5vDjZ5tSt=314Dquju7N26XSOqQPNjV=jO6D8Xn7QVdQ@mail.gmail.com> <89d1c702-7830-1f5a-1176-0b894e2d99e9@nostrum.com> <CAHbuEH5OX-GiwF7zqWmks5k6yLj5SXvXwYVFjCChrsa_ckokwQ@mail.gmail.com> <f6ac64b0-1e50-b02f-7043-8cae2cd56020@nostrum.com> <CAHbuEH7B=bzknZnfF_qsE435peOOd8XYjd=YKREeXw0RW18aGA@mail.gmail.com> <0c744357-0d94-62a8-c16b-81a02ef5db45@nostrum.com> <CAG4d1reMAu0YmTfPnStYFx1DotDpwnuGP3BM8ks5-YA1XxrKtA@mail.gmail.com> <d4fa3596-8ff5-5d31-41c3-10e189d553b0@nostrum.com> <CAG4d1recAczYUczXSw9w8=RT6ijE2fkc1FoRVF5_s-g1EaDe=w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNQ=kwZZf6gUa_r1hJEscn+T11=mu3P1ACjjggMhkivHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNQ=kwZZf6gUa_r1hJEscn+T11=mu3P1ACjjggMhkivHA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5277644ABE74aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/OrEdZqtwCYPE-eIYjULWHFmoHdA>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:23:42 -0000


From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:17 AM
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org>>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>, Derek Yeung <derek@arrcus.com<mailto:derek@arrcus.com>>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>>, Ing-Wher Chen <Ing-Wher_Chen@jabil.com<mailto:Ing-Wher_Chen@jabil.com>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:17 AM



On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:
On 4/26/17 23:02, Alia Atlas wrote:
First, the YANG model is primarily for information in motion - either for configuration to the device
or to read from the device.   It is much less likely to represent the data structure and storage in the device.
I believe that this draft's context is strictly for information in motion.


Thanks; I understand all that. I'm trying to focus on the final paragraph of section 5, though, which appears to be an exception to what you say above.

I don't understand why - IMHO, that paragraph is simply saying  - this model passes keys around (in motion).  Of course, a system shouldn't store such keys unencrypted.  From what Acee says, this "motherhood and apple pie" additional advice was added due to secdir review.

I thought Adam's point was that storing keys encrypted with a key that's adjacent to them was not useful.

Right. I’m not sure what the definition of “adjacent” is here since it is very implementation specific. I will remove the final paragraph in the next revision when I add KEK back (assuming we can agree on reasonable guidance and which RFC to reference). What I’m strongly opposed to is pushing this back in the process for such a change.

Acee


-Ekr


Regards,
Alia


/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email