Subject: [Netconf] Fwd: Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:24:47 +0100

FYI and comment

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Date: 	Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:34:24 -0800
From: 	Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
To: 	The IESG <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

Tim Polk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

2.2.  paragraph 1 - last sentence is awkward.   In general connections are
encrypted "in" an algorithm (e.g., AES) or "using" a protocol (e.g., TLS).
Suggest:

s/encrypted in TLS [16] or SSH [14]/encrypted using TLS [16] or SSH [14]/

(2)

3.1.  Namespace

Should this text reference the namespace base:1.1 instead of base:1.0 ??

(3)

The example in 6.2.2 Attribute Match Expressions references containment nodes
and selection nodes, which are described in 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, respectively.

It might be cleaner to reorder as 6.2.2 Containment Nodes, 6.2.3 Selection Nodes,
and 6.2.4 Attribute Match Expressions so that concepts are introduced sequentially

(4)

Section 8.1  The following sentence implies that clients can attack other sessions
by guessing session-ids:

A server receiving a<session-id>  element MUST close the NETCONF
    session.

I believe the intent was as follows:

A server receiving a<hello>  element that includes a<session-id>  element
MUST ignore the session-id and close the NETCONF session.

If that is the intent, I suggest the latter wording.

(5)

Section 9.  Security Considerations, paragraph five states:

    Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive.  Its
    transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves
    devices open to classic eavesdropping attacks.  Configuration
    information often contains passwords, user names, service
    descriptions, and topological information, all of which are
    sensitive.  Because of this, this protocol SHOULD be implemented
    carefully with adequate attention to all manner of attack one might
    expect to experience with other management interfaces.

The clause "and without integrity checking" is not relevant to eavesdropping attacks.
Suggest:

s/classic eavesdropping attacks/classic eavesdropping and false data injection attacks/