Energy Object Context MIB
draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-17

[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I think this is a good draft and appreciate the work that has gone into the security considerations template.

I'd like to discuss options to address some concerns that came up for a few IoT related MIBs this week and see if we can address this more holistically.  The concerns popped up in SecDir reviews, my review, and Alissa called out some privacy related concerns that face individuals and homes (security folks are worried about attacks to individuals and homes).

#1. Is it time to update the MIB security considerations template to include privacy considerations and a mention of the importance of the protections for all environments including home and those that effect an individual?  I think it would save us a lot of time and would be helpful.  I think the security considerations are very good, but that adding a statement that the recommendations for secure authenticated access controls applies to home networks would be good.  This additional text would also explain privacy considerations that Alissa proposed (in another discuss for draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-12).  I'd hate to see assumptions that a home device doesn't matter when developers/implementer reads the security considerations section for MIB drafts related to IoT.

Would it work better if this was a subsection that gets added only for IoT related MIBs?  Here is the text again, with a sentence added for security:
  "In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal sensitive
  information about individuals' activities and habits. Implementors of this
  specification should use appropriate privacy protections as discussed in
  Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of individuals and homes should only occur
  with proper authorization.  Secure authenticated access via SNMPv3 implemented in
  such devices is RECOMMENDED to prevent unauthorized write access that could be
  used to attack individuals and devices in their homes."

For the energy aware mib, a few settings popped out as having potential for damage.  I am not asking that they get addressed directly, something along the lines of the above text would be good enough for me.

The draft already calls out the read/write objects, which is great, so there is no need to call out specific attacks that could occur using these settings to an individual or home (IMO).  When I went through the draft, I did try to think through possibilities for attacks, but will leave that out as to keep the discussion focused and see how we might improve the considerations.

#2. In the first paragraph of the Security considerations template, a change to the sentence on implications of SET operations would also be helpful.  It seems that all of the SecDir reviewers (& I) had fun thinking up scenarios that are becoming real that we would rather see avoided for the IoT related reviews.

The following sentence in the current template doesn't cover the attack implications that are possible for IoT if some of the possible SET operations are attacked:

  "The
  support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper
  protection can have a negative effect on network operations."

We are moving to a world where the security of the environment can be effected, where a home or individual can be attacked in new ways (burst pipes in the winter through heating settings, muck with backup power to the refrigerator spoiling food during a power outage, set alarms on batteries to go off as an annoyance or to not go off at all to do real damage to home, building, etc.).  Tero and Steve K. came up with a few 'fun' attacks as well.

How about changing the above sentence to the following (or to something that gets at the same point):

  "The
  support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper
  protection can have a negative effect on network operations or leave
  cyber physical devices used by individuals, homes, and business
  vulnerable to attack."

Steve Kent's SecDir review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04897.html
For the energy monitoring mib review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04881.html

Thanks!

[Ballot discuss]
Overall, I think this is a good draft and appreciate the work that has gone into the security considerations template.

I'd like to discuss options to address some concerns that came up for a few IoT related MIBs this week and see if we can address this more holistically.  The concerns popped up in SecDir reviews, my review, and Alissa called out some privacy related concerns that face individuals and homes (security folks are worried about attacks to individuals and homes).

Is it time to update the MIB security considerations template to include privacy considerations and a mention of the importance of the protections for all environments including home and those that effect an individual?  I think it would save us a lot of time and would be helpful.  I think the security considerations are very good, but that adding a statement that the recommendations for secure authenticated access controls applies to home networks would be good.  This additional text would also explain privacy considerations that Alissa proposed (in another discuss for draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-12).  I'd hate to see assumptions that a home device doesn't matter when developers/implementer reads the security considerations section for MIB drafts related to IoT.

Would it work better if this was a subsection that gets added only for IoT related MIBs?  Here is the text again, with a sentence added for security:
  "In certain situations, energy and power monitoring can reveal sensitive
  information about individuals' activities and habits. Implementors of this
  specification should use appropriate privacy protections as discussed in
  Section 9 of RFC 6988 and monitoring of individuals and homes should only occur
  with proper authorization.  Secure authenticated access via SNMPv3 implemented in
  such devices is RECOMMENDED to prevent unauthorized write access that could be
  used to attack individuals and devices in their homes."

For the energy aware mib, a few settings popped out as having potential for damage.  I am not asking that they get addressed directly, something along the lines of the above text would be good enough for me.

The draft already calls out the read/write objects, which is great, so there is no need to call out specific attacks that could occur using these settings to an individual or home (IMO).  When I went through the draft, I did try to think through possibilities for attacks, but will leave that out as to keep the discussion focused and see how we might improve the considerations.

Thanks!

[Ballot comment]
Nit on Page 15, start of last sentence in the following section, should be "If" instead of "f", I think.

     
        eoEthPortIndex  OBJECT-TYPE 
            SYNTAX      PethPsePortIndexOrZero
            MAX-ACCESS  read-only
            STATUS      current
            DESCRIPTION     
              "This variable uniquely identifies the power Ethernet
              port to which a Power over Enternet device is connected .
              If the Power over Ethernet MIB RFC 3621 is supported by
              the SNMP agent managing the Energy Object, then the
              Energy Object eoethPortIndex MUST contain the
              corresponding value of pethPsePortIndex. f such a power
              Ethernet port cannot be specified or is not known then
              the object is zero."
              REFERENCE "RFC 3621 "
              DEFVAL { 0 }

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-15.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a NOTE about our office location.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB
subregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: EnergyObjectContextMIB
Description: Energy Object Context MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB
subregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

ianaEnergyRelationMIB          { mib-2 xxx2 }

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: ianaEnergyRelationMIB
Description: IANA ENERGY RELATION MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

NOTES:
1) IANA's office location described in section 5 should be corrected:

OLD:
          CONTACT-INFO "
                            Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
                            Postal: ICANN
                            4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
                            Marina del Rey, CA 90292
                            Tel: +1-310-823-9358
                            EMail: iana&iana.org"

NEW:
          CONTACT-INFO "
                            Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
                            Postal: ICANN
                            12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300
                            Los Angeles, CA 90094
                            Tel: +1-310-301 5800
                            EMail: iana&iana.org"

2) It appears there are typos in these section numbers:

4. Architecture Concepts Applied to the MIB Module................. 5
          5.1 Energy Object Identification..........................8
          5.2 Energy Object Context.................................9
          5.3 Links to Other Identifiers...........................10
          5.4 Energy Object Relationships..........................11
          5.5 Energy Object Identity Persistence...................12
5. MIB Definitions................................................ 12

IANA understands these to be the only actions required of IANA upon
approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Energy Object Context MIB) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Energy Management WG (eman) to
consider the following document:
- 'Energy Object Context MIB'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


        This document defines a subset of a Management Information Base
        (MIB) for energy management of devices. The module addresses
        device identification, context information, and the energy
        relationships between devices.

   



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2145/

Document:  draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-15
Title:    Energy Object Context MIB
Editors:  J. Parello, B. Claise and M. Chandramouli
Intended status:  Standards Track

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
    Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC
    indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.  Now that the EMAN Framework is in the RFC Editor
Queue, EMAN's three MIB drafts are ready for submission to the IESG.
Being MIBs, interoperability requires that they be Standards Track
RFCs.  Yes, their headers say Standards Track.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
    Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
    approved documents. The approval announcement contains the
    following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document defines a subset of a Management Information Base (MIB)
for energy management of devices. The module addresses device
identification, context information, and the energy relationships
between devices.

The Energy Object Context MIB has two independent MIB modules,
energyAwareMIB and ianaEnergyRelationMIB. The first, energyAwareMIB,
specifies MIB objects for identification of Energy Objects.  The
second, ianaEnergyRelationMIB, specifies the first set of
IANA-maintained definitions of relationships between Energy Objects.

Working Group Summary

Version -01 of the draft was published in December 2010.
New versions were published about every three months from then
until version -13 in mid December 2013.

Document Quality

Version -13 had its WG Last Call from 13 to 30 December 2013;
as part of that it was reviewed by the MIB-Doctors.  Several reviews
were received from the EMAN list, as well as considerable discussion
with the MIB Doctors over where the Energy MIBs should be positioned
in the mib-2 tree.
The authors have modified the draft in response to that feedback;
we believe that the current (-15) version has resolved all the
issues.  That discussion took place on the EMAN list through January
2014.

Personnel

Document Shepherd:        Nevil Brownlee
Responsible Area Director: Joel Jaegli

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
    by the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not
    ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
    forwarded to the IESG.

I have read the draft carefully.  As well as the ASN1 MIB definitions,
it has lots of supporting detail, including a brief summary of the EMAN
Framework, the architecture of the MIBs (with UML diagrams for them),
and clear descriptions of all the concepts on which Energy Objects
and their relationships depend.

It also has a realistic Security Considerations section
and a brief overview of two known implementations of the MIBs.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.  The only reason that this draft has waited since February 2014
is that it depends on the EMAN Framework - which is now in the RFC
Editor Queue.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
    review that took place.

This draft was carefully reviewed by the MIB Doctors.  Several problems
with it were pointed out; they have been fixed in the current version.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
    Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area
    Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps
    he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
    has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
    if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
    still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No known problems.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
    IPR disclosures.

Yes, IPR disclosure # 2145 covers this draft.  The WG was aware
of that from very early on, there's been no discussion of IPR within
the WG.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
    agree with it?

There is strong consensus for this draft within the EMAN WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

There were 8 warnings, I believe the RFC Editor will fix these.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

It was reviewed by the MIB Doctors during its WG Last Call.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
    either normative or informative?

Yes.  There is a normative reference to ANSI's LLDP MIB extension
module, which was published in 2005.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
    for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their
    completion?

Yes.  This draft has a normative reference to the EMAN Energy
Monitoring MIB draft (and vice versa).  These two drafts are being
submitted together.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
    3967)?  If so, list these downward references to support the Area
    Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
    listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
    RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
    why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
    of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
    information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
    it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
    extensions that the document makes are associated with the
    appropriate reservations in IANA registries.  Confirm that any
    referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
    a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
    RFC 5226).

IANA is asked to assign two indeces in mib-2 for these MIBs.
[There are two other EMAN MIB drafts being submitted concurrently with
this one, it would be good if all the EMAN MIBs had consecutive
numbers].

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

No new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

I don't have any SMI checking software; I assume that the MIB Doctors
have performed such checks.

-----

Document:  draft-ietf-eman-energy-aware-mib-14
Title:    Energy Object Context MIB
Editors:  J. Parello, B. Claise and M. Chandramouli
Intended status:  Standards Track

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
    Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC
    indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.  Now that the EMAN Framework is in the RFC Editor
Queue, EMAN's three MIB drafts are ready for submission to the IESG.
Being MIBs, interoperability requires that they be Standards Track
RFCs.  Yes, their headers say Standards Track.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
    Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
    approved documents. The approval announcement contains the
    following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document defines a subset of a Management Information Base (MIB)
for energy management of devices. The module addresses device
identification, context information, and the energy relationships
between devices.

The Energy Object Context MIB has two independent MIB modules,
energyAwareMIB and ianaEnergyRelationMIB. The first, energyAwareMIB,
specifies MIB objects for identification of Energy Objects.  The
second, ianaEnergyRelationMIB, specifies the first set of
IANA-maintained definitions of relationships between Energy Objects.

Working Group Summary

Version -01 of the draft was published in December 2010.
New versions were published about every three months from then
until version -13 in mid December 2013.

Document Quality

Version -13 had its WG Last Call from 13 to 30 December 2013;
as part of that it was reviewed by the MIB-Doctors.  Several reviews
were received from the EMAN list, as well as considerable discussion
with the MIB Doctors over where the Energy MIBs should be positioned
in the mib-2 tree.
The authors have modified the draft in response to that feedback;
we believe that the current (-14) version has resolved all the
issues.  That discussion took place on the EMAN list through January
2014.

Personnel

Document Shepherd:        Nevil Brownlee
Responsible Area Director: Joel Jaegli

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
    by the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not
    ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
    forwarded to the IESG.

I have read the draft carefully.  As well as the ASN1 MIB definitions,
it has lots of supporting detail, including a brief summary of the EMAN
Framework, the architecture of the MIBs (with UML diagrams for them),
and clear descriptions of all the concepts on which Energy Objects
and their relationships depend.

It also has a realistic Security Considerations section
and a brief overview of two known implementations of the MIBs.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.  The only reason that this draft has waited since February 2014
is that it depends on the EMAN Framework - which is now in the RFC
Editor Queue.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
    review that took place.

This draft was carefully reviewed by the MIB Doctors.  Several problems
with it were pointed out; they have been fixed in the current version.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
    Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area
    Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps
    he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
    has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
    if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
    still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No known problems.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
    IPR disclosures.

Yes, IPR disclosure # 2145 covers this draft.  The WG was aware
of that from very early on, there's been no discussion of IPR within
the WG.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
    agree with it?

There is strong consensus for this draft within the EMAN WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

There were 8 warnings, I believe the RFC Editor will fix these.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

It was reviewed by the MIB Doctors during its WG Last Call.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
    either normative or informative?

Yes.  There is a normative reference to ANSI's LLDP MIB extension
module, which was published in 2005.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
    for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their
    completion?

Yes.  This draft has a normative reference to the EMAN Energy
Monitoring MIB draft (and vice versa).  These two drafts are being
submitted together.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
    3967)?  If so, list these downward references to support the Area
    Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
    listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
    RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
    why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
    of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
    information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
    it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
    extensions that the document makes are associated with the
    appropriate reservations in IANA registries.  Confirm that any
    referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
    a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
    RFC 5226).

IANA is asked to assign two indeces in mib-2 for these MIBs.
[There are two other EMAN MIB drafts being submitted concurrently with
this one, it would be good if all the EMAN MIBs had consecutive
numbers].

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

No new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

I don't have any SMI checking software; I assume that the MIB Doctors
have performed such checks.

-----