First, there may be some confusion because the announcement. I presume
that you are talking about the -environments documents.
If the WG concludes that a different chapter structure is useful, we can
of course change it. Given that the goal is environment description, I
am not sure your proposed structure is significantly better than the
existing one.
I believe your comment about the text reading "where security functions
may be hosted" is well taken, and we should remove that text when we
next revise the document.
The isolation text is about the need to keep things separate, and the
various possible means are degrees / approaches to separation.
Isolation is not about treating things differently, nor is it explicitly
about using different protocols. So the point of isolation is not that
there are different security requirements, but that in order to avoid
corss-effects, things should be kept separate.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/20/15 6:42 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
I support the WG adoption because I think the I2RS WG needs it. However,
I hope the authors can consider/address the following suggestions/comments:
When you think about the I2RS security, there are following different
aspects:
-Communication channel between I2RS client and Agent (and the channel
between I2RS client and applications):
The channel can be
oVia physical Private network (e.g. within a secured direct connect
within one site),
owithin one administrative domain, via virtual private network
oSecured connection, such as TLS or IPSec
oPublic internet
o..
-Authentication & Authorization
othe authentication & authorization requirement for different
communication channels can be different. Therefore, should have separate
sections to address specific requirement for each communication
channels between I2RS agent <-> clients (and client <-> applications)
The current Section 4 of the draft already has very good description on
the subject. I think 4.4.1 and 4.42 can be separated out of the section.
-Encryption for the actual content between Client and Agent
-DoS Design requirement (currently in Section 5.2.1)
-Management of conflict with other plane (e.g. the management plane,
multi-headed control, which has been discussed extensively in ephemeral
draft)
I think the draft should be organized from the aspects of the security
to I2RS as suggested above.
Here are some detailed questions and comments to the requirements listed
in the document:
Section 1:
The second paragraph stated the security recommendations must
“specifying where security functions may be hosted”. First of all I
don’t see the draft address this aspect. Second, I think “where
security functions are hosted” is orthogonal to “I2RS security” .
Section 3:
what does isolating two planes mean? does it mean they have different
security requirement/issues? Or does it mean they need different protocols?
What are the key differences with regard to the security requirements
for I2RS plane and for management plane? Section 3.1 describes the
interaction between I2RS plane and management plane. But I see the
security requirement for the management plane is similar to I2RS plane .
If you think that they are very different, can you elaborate more?
Section 3.4 has title “Recommendations”, but the content are all
requirements. Why not name the section “Requirement”?
REQ 2: Does it that a different IP address than the one used by the
management system?
How is REQ 22 different from REQ 21?
REQ 27 is hard to enforce. How about say something like "shouldn't send
any information beyond what have been defined by the I2RS data model"?
REQ 30: simply controlling the resource can hardly prevent DoS.
Malicious client can occupy the resource while the valid one can't access.
Thanks for consideration,
Linda
*From:*i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares
*Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2015 12:50 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* 'Jeffrey Haas'; [email protected]; 'Joel Halpern';
[email protected]; 'Alia Atlas'
*Subject:* [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-requirements-00 2 Week WG
adoption call (8/17 to 8/31)
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-mglt-i2rs-security-requirements. This draft discusses the
security requirements for the I2RS environment. You can find the draft at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-00
A security reviewer will review this draft during the time 8/20 to
8/25. We will post the security directorate review to this discussion.
Sue Hares
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
