Hi, I strongly agree with Juergen on this issue. But you can easily design a YANG extension that indicates a data node is OK for insecure transport.
I trust that the IESG will evaluate every object of this type and decide whether it is really OK for disclosure in every possible usage scenario. The flip-side of this extension is that any node not properly tagged MUST NOT be sent without the proper security protocols. This rule will likely be ignored, since (as Juergen pointed out) this is a deployment decision, not a modeling decision. Andy On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Juergen: > > I recognize that dislike insecure communication. You made a similar > comment > during the WG LC and IETF review of > draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements. However, the > draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements were passed by the I2RS WG > and approved by the IESG for RFC publication and it contains the non-secure > communication. The mandate from the I2RS WG for this shepherd/co-chair is > clear. > > As the shepherd for the topology drafts, I try to write-up something that > might address Kathleen's Moriarty's concerns about the topology draft's > security issues about privacy and the I2RS ephemeral control plane data > store. I welcome an open discussion on my ideas > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider). > The > yang doctor's YANG security consideration template > (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines) and the > privacy related RFCs (RFC6973) note that some information is sensitive. > Hopefully, this document extends these guidelines to a new data store. > > Cheerily, > Sue Hares > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:34 AM > To: Susan Hares > Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'The IESG'; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT) > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
