Subject: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 06:37:00 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff/

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

Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.  “differences” bullet.  Per “… defined in RFC8072”, please make
“RFC8072” an reference.

** Section 6.  Please review Alexey’s feedback on providing an empty line
between the HTTP header and playload.

** Section 6.  “same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format)”.  Missing “:”
making the JSON invalid.

OLD
   { "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {

NEW
   { "ietf-nmda-compare:input": {

** Section 9.  The primary new security issue is definitely the possibility of
a denial of service as is documented.  I’m not sure what assumption are being
made about the datastores -- would it be possible that a user doesn’t have read
access to either the source and target of the comparison, but would be able to
invoke the RPC?  If so, this might leak configuration information.