Hi Kathleen,

I will do the edits that you request, and try and submit later this
afternoon.

best regards,
John

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I had placed this on the telechat in a little over 2 weeks.  If there
> is no response and update today, I will have to move it until after
> Singapore as the IETF last call takes 2 weeks and I'd like a couple of
> days after that completes prior to the telechat.  Please let me know
> the status so I can adjust telechat dates or start the IETF last call.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thank you for your work on this document!  I know it underwent many
> > revisions and it can be difficult to merge text pulling together ideas
> > from numerous contributors.  The draft is well written and easy to
> > understand, thank you for all your hard work, it shows!
> >
> > Now to a few comments I'd like to see if we can clear up before
> > starting last call.
> >
> > Section 5 begins with the following text:
> >
> >    An important concept underlying this framework is the fact that
> >    attackers do not have standards as to how to attack networks, so it
> >    is equally important to not constrain NSF developers to offering a
> >    limited set of security functions.  In other words, the introduction
> >    of I2NSF standards should not make it easier for attackers to
> >    compromise the network.
> >
> > I think the first sentence could be safely dropped and the second
> > sentence altered to something like the following:
> >
> >    A basic tenet in the introduction
> >    of I2NSF standards is that he standards should not make it easier
> > for attackers to
> >    compromise the network.
> >
> > You may get comments on the following point, also in section 5:
> >
> >    o  Be seen as endorsing a best common practice for the implementation
> >       of NSFs
> >
> > But, I am not going to suggest a change yet.  I could see further
> > explanation being needed for the text.
> >
> > Section 7.1
> >
> > I'd suggest using a different example for the time constraints, a
> > business one would be better.  The one listed for a home user could
> > have the reader jump to censorship concerns if this is targeted to
> > home users.  How about an ERP system is allowed to be accessed from
> > the corporate network only during business hours for a high privileged
> > class of users?  Outside of the times could indicate an attack and
> > you'd want that access approved if there was an extenuating
> > circumstance.
> >
> > Do you plan to allow for rule setting to be extended to home users?  I
> > think that will raise concern as I thought scope was limited to
> > enterprises with cloud service offerings.
> >
> > Section 8:
> > s/I2NSF system can explose/I2NSF system can expose/
> >
> > Section 11.
> >
> > Since this is the framework, the security considerations are fine, but
> > you do need to add a privacy considerations section. I can see a few
> > possible privacy concerns and there may be more that I am missing.
> >
> > Privacy of end users with the reporting options.  If all of the fields
> > described in section 10 could be used in reports, you have a lot of
> > interesting tracking information that is now easily accessible with
> > quick reports.  The ability to leave out identifying information will
> > be important as will having ways to protect that data at rest as well
> > as in transit.
> >
> > I2NSF could also be used in targeted ways toward individuals in attack
> > scenarios, both an invasion of privacy and a security consideration
> > for the attack possibilities.  If home use is not out-of-scope, you'll
> > have real issues here and it will be really hard to tackle the
> > security and privacy concerns.
> >
> > The I2NSF user information could be sensitive too - meaning the person
> > doing provisioning.  What protects their account information (I think
> > you have this covered), you may want to state it for privacy reasons.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kathleen
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>



-- 
regards,
John
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Reply via email to