Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 29 October 2014 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AF11A00E5; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
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_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 WoerEnct3MwF; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A431A014F; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3748; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414592469; x=1415802069; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k0vba0YfZzHt0TPPRP0lkbr2plRMU6q/u4gS4QNQFKs=; b=f8O27BZYBeKNA+E7QSsJFgcYUfzFjF6qgZSJV34DU7llhl08eZtSV1eX JikTum/Cx6b2pI8oO0BiZA2MpQqpwQgMF8GP5/+eHv9zU8zLgkfdQrGKW W+JCvhouGdn02bFu/i3s9TAtRdfMAiU7gFX9wtn23SCfDuBynY9CxsbzY I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUEAKj2UFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg2JYzhIKhnlUAoExAQEBAQF9hAIBAQEEAQEBLwEFLwcKAQwECw4DBAEBAQkWCAcJAwIBAgEVHwkIBgEMAQUCAQGIKAMSDcBVCIY9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5EJBwaERQEEj22GaIcTgTE8gw2CdIpHhAODeTwvAYJKAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,810,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="229705491"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2014 14:21:06 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9TEL4JJ009348; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:21:04 GMT
Message-ID: <5450F7D0.2030405@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:21:04 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, afarrel@juniper.net
References: <D06FB0C8.253DE%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <09a201cfef81$51aac740$f50055c0$@juniper.net> <19FF9B70-0C5C-4202-B546-11870A1858BD@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <19FF9B70-0C5C-4202-B546-11870A1858BD@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/c-aFVPfAi3NDlL_pnPK1wIHqznI
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:21:35 -0000

Thanks David for your answer.

Regards, Benoit
> Hi,
>
> I’m a MIB Doctor, not an AD.
> But I’ll respond anyway.
>
> The text in the boilerplate went through a long negotiation process balancing interoperability, SNMP best current practices, and security best current practices.
> The boilerplate represents the result - the best current practices related to interoperable security for SNMP and the MIB.
> The boilerplate text should NOT be modified on a MIB-module by MIB-module basis.
>
> The document being reviewed changed the boilerplate, changing SHOULD implement SNMPv3 into MUST implement SNMPv3.
> While desirable, that is actually incorrect for interoperability reasons.
> Theoretically, MIB modules are independent of the protocol carrying the data defined in the module.
> MIB modules should always be independent of the SNMP version that carries the data. So this MIB module, if correctly designed, should also work using SNMPv1/v2 or (maybe some time in the future) an SNMPv4.
> This MIB module should also be able to be used with Netconf, using the MIB-to-YANG conversion standard.
> So changing the SHOULD implement SNMPv3 to MUST implement SNMPv3 is incorrect, because SNMPv3 is NOT REQUIRED for this MIB module to work.
>
> The best way for a document to address the security requirements for a MIB module, is to use the boilerplate verbatim, modifying only those places where it calls for a list of the sensitive objects, and the reasons why they are considered sensitive.
>
> David Harrington
> ietfdbh@comcast.net
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>; wrote:
>
>> Sec and Ops ADs...
>>
>> Could you please interpret this review by Carl in the context of the "best current advice" and boilerplate for MIB modules.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carl Wallace
>>> Sent: 24 October 2014 12:31
>>> To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org
>>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
>>> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
>>>
>>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>>> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
>>> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
>>> just like any other last call comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> This document describes a MIB that "describes managed objects for modeling
>>> of Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
>>> communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
>>> Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs”.
>>>
>>> I am not a MIB guy and did not review the definitions.  The security
>>> considerations section mostly addresses SNMP related considerations in
>>> general via references to other specs.  This seems fine.  The only minor
>>> nit here is the following:
>>>
>>> 	Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the
>>> SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for
>>> authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
>>> [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826].
>>>
>>> RFC3410 only defines support for use of CBC-DES.  If support for AES is
>>> intended instead of DES, that should be noted more strongly here.  The
>>> requirement for "full support" of RFC3414 could be misinterpreted.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> secdir mailing list
>> secdir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
> .
>