Re: [sacm] SACM Architecture Draft

[Sherif Mansour <[e-mail]>]

Hey Everyone,
Sorry for popping in so infrequently. I have taken a brief look at the
architecture, and I have some feedback:
Should the downstream users pull their data from the repo (an authoritative
data source) instead of the message bus?
That way, there is a consistent view of that the current state of an
end-point security posture and analysis can be built on top if it. I would
not think it can be done directly from the message bus. I also would think
the information from the repo would be bi directional?
Equally had some question on the data ingest (message bus) I assume there
is an Access model as not everything on the message bus is to be accessible
by everyone, is that taken into consideration?
[image: image.png]
Should the Orchstrator have a direct connection to the Repo, there are
cases where the orchestrator needs reference data in order to tell the
posture managers what to do and not just react to them. Additionally there
are cases where what the posture manager finds from the collectors will be
different than what is on file in inventory and the discrepancy.
[image: image.png]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM Adam Montville <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Jarret,
>
> Thank you for reading through the draft. Happy to talk about some of these
> things today during the interim. I think we would prefer that
> interfaces/capabilities are first described abstractly — irrespective of
> any specific messaging solution — and then use XMPP-Grid+ as an
> implementation example.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 7:27 PM, Jarrett Lu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam & SACM,
>
> I read the (active) architecture draft, and I believe it's a good one. The
> hackathon work reflected in the draft definitely carries some weight.
>
> Some architecture entities could be expanded and described at a more
> abstract level. For example, this draft appears to equate "capabilities"
> with set of interfaces. Are SACM capabilities supposed to be discoverable?
> If so, how should it be represented? If capabilities/functional interfaces
> are described in more general terms, and use XMPP-grid+ as an example of
> how it meets the functional requirements, this may make it appear less
> solution-centric.
>
> I vote for including workflows in the architecture document. It just reads
> better that way. It will increase the document size and takes longer to
> finish. As long as good progress is being made, is it really urgent to
> finish and publisher the architecture document.
>
> I think the Security Consideration section of the old architecture draft
> is pretty good. Do XMPP-grid XEPs adress the MitM, transport integrity and
> confidentiality concerns mentioned there?
>
> Regards.
>
> - Jarrett
>
> On 12/27/18 01:29 PM, Adam Montville wrote:
>
> Dear SACM,
>
> Happy (belated) Holidays and a Happy New Year to you!
>
> At our recent virtual interim meeting I promised to post a note to the
> list regarding our architecture draft to do three things:
>
>    1. Request review
>    2. Indicate whether we (the authors) believe it's on the right track
>    3. Assuming 2 is good, a list of what's left to be done.
>
> So, we're going to start with 2, move on to 3, and then end with 1...
>
> Bill and I both believe that the architecture draft is, indeed, on the
> right track. Henk, and possibly others (Nancy?), have described this draft
> as being too solutions-specific. Section 3, "Architectural Overview" is
> intended to be the place in this draft to describe the abstract ideas in
> the architecture. Section 3.1 talks a little bit about the roles of the
> SACM Components, and Section 3.2 provides the known information about an
> XMPP-based instantiation of the architecture (note Appendix A maps this
> instantiation back to our SACM requirements, RFC8248).
>
> Assuming that we are on the right track, then here's what we think yet
> needs to be done:
>
>
>    - Document specific Components, Capabilities, Interfaces, and Workflows
>       - IT Asset Management could probably stand to be fleshed out
>       - Vulnerability Management is reasonable documented in this draft,
>       but may need work
>       - Configuration management probably needs to be fleshed out as well
>       (needs to be tied to SACM Use Cases)
>    - Determine where to document the above (in this draft or in new
>    drafts), which will determine how long this draft takes to complete.
>    - Prague hackathon to continue the trend of discovering an XMPP-based
>    solution
>    - TODOs in the draft
>       - Privacy Considerations
>       - Security Considerations
>    - Flesh out our IANA Considerations
>       - Will likely result in additional draft work
>
>
>
> Clearly, there's a lot to be done here, and we really need your specific,
> actionable feedback on this draft. Feel free to reach out here or to either
> of us directly.
>
> This draft in GitHub: https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch
>
> This draft on the SACM documents page:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-arch/
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam & Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>