For what it is worth, I find the notion that data models may be written for a specific non-secure transport plain broken. There is hardly any content of a data model I can think of which is generally suitable for insecure transports.
Can we please kill this idea of _standardizing_ information that is suitable to send over non-secure transports? I really do not see how the IETF can make a claim that a given piece of information is never worth protecting (= suitable for non-secure transports). Note that I am fine if in a certain trusted tightly-coupled deployment information is shipped in whatever way but this is then a property of the _deployment_ and not a property of the _information_. /js On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:28:14AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote: > Kathleen: > > I have written a draft suggesting a template for the I2RS YANG modules which > are designed to exist in the I2RS Ephemeral Control Plane data store > (configuration and operational state). > > Draft location: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider/ > > I would appreciate an email discussion with the security ADs, OPS/NM ADs, and > Routing AD (Alia Atlas). I agree that this I2RS YANG data model (L3) and the > base I2RS topology model should both provide updated YANG Security > Considerations sections. I would appreciate if Benoit or you hold a discuss > until we sort out these issues. > > Thank you, > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:44 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT) > > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with Alissa's comment that the YANG module security consideration > section guidelines need to be followed and this shouldn't go forward until > that is corrected. I'm told it will be, thanks. > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
