Subject: [I2nsf] AD review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:59:47 -0400

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

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:13:51 -0400

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

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:16:36 -0700

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 <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>

-- 
regards,
John

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:21:26 -0700

Hi Kathleen,

thank you for your comments, and sorry for the delay. I have
addressed all of them, and tried to remove other examples
of home user usage. I added a brief privacy statement to
the security section.

best regards,
John

-- 
regards,
John