Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and Information Model
draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-11

[Ballot comment]

Thanks for handling my discuss point. The comments below
are old and I didn't check if you'd done anything about them
in -10 but that's fine either way unless you want to chat more
about 'em.

--------- OLD COMMENTS

- 5.2: Requested/Applied Operation Data - I would guess
this can include sensitive values, e.g. keys/passwords.
Shouldn’t you say to at least be careful of those, or
perhaps to not log them, or to zero out known sensitive
values before logging?

- 7.2: how is privacy an implementation detail?

- 7.4: What does "being preferred" mean in 2119 terms? Why
is one of the three options not mandatory-to-implement?

[Ballot comment]
LATE BUT POSSIBLY IMPORTANT: I apologise for raising a last minute issue, but the points made in Elwyn Davie's Gen-ART review would deserve some discussion. I'm not looking to hold the document but wanted to ensure that the comments get discussed.

I agree with Stephen's comments though.

[Ballot comment]
Given that this is a framework document, rather than repeatedly declaring various operational aspects "out of scope" (7 times in 12 pages by my count), I would suggest just stating the requirements and guidance that are in scope. Readers should not be expecting to find lots of implementation details in this document. This would provide more clarity than saying that details are out of scope, but then specifying some of them anyway (e.g., for log trace rotation in 7.3).

I agree with Stephen's DISCUSS and COMMENT.

[Ballot discuss]

Intro: I don't agree that all data retention aspects are
out of scope here. They are about as in-scope as log
rotation I'd say. I do think it'd be worthwhile noting that
if log content contains sensitive data (either security- or
privacy-sensitive) then retaining that data for extended
durations has a cost, in terms of creating risks if data
leaks. While one cannot say here how to evaluate such
risks, they do exist and should really be noted. It would
also be sensible IMO to say that implementations SHOULD
provide a way to purge ancient log content that is no
longer needed or useful, but that the definition of when
content is no longer needed or useful is out of scope.  In
saying this I do recognise that much or perhaps even most
i2rs log content will not be security or privacy sensitive,
but in some cases it can be, e.g. if an operation involved
an address that is specific to a user or device carried by
a user. In addition, some data retention regimes could
impose a requirement to purge log content after a certain
duration. I'd say a note about this in the intro or in the
security considerations should be a fine way to handle this
issue, and to acknowledge that not all data retention
issues are out of scope for implementations.

[Ballot comment]

- 5.2: Requested/Applied Operation Data - I would guess
this can include sensitive values, e.g. keys/passwords.
Shouldn’t you say to at least be careful of those, or
perhaps to not log them, or to zero out known sensitive
values before logging?

- 7.2: how is privacy an implementation detail?

- 7.4: What does "being preferred" mean in 2119 terms? Why
is one of the three options not mandatory-to-implement?

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.2: Starting Timestamp and Ending Timestamp

It is not clear what the terms 32-bit second and 32-bit microsecond mean here as the RFC3339 format seems to be a string representation (e.g. the seconds value will never be more than 59). It may be useful to restate these granularity requirements in terms of number of digits required after the decimal point instead

Section 5.2: Entry ID

Some more clarity as to how Entry IDs work would be useful. e.g. Is this a monotonically increasing integer? What happens when this wraps? What happens when the log file is rotated etc.

[Ballot comment]
- Syslog rfc5424

Let's make the RFC2119 sentence clear (include the "If", and remove "example")
Background: last time I checked (about 6 months ago), RFC5424 was not implemented
OLD:
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, then existing logging
  infrastructure and capabilities of syslog [RFC5424] should be
  leveraged without the need to define or extend existing formats.  For
  example, the various fields described in Section 5.2 SHOULD be
  modeled and encoded as Structured Data Elements (referred to as "SD-
  ELEMENT"), as described in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5424].

NEW:
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, then existing logging
  infrastructure and capabilities of syslog [RFC5424] should be
  leveraged without the need to define or extend existing formats. 
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, the various fields
  described in Section 5.2 SHOULD be modeled and encoded as
  Structured Data Elements (referred to as "SD-
  ELEMENT"), as described in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5424].

- Out of the 3 methods for trace log retrieval (section 7.4), I was expecting the pub-sub to be THE method, and was expecting a MUST requirement.
Background: I just reviewed draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.
Do I miss anything?

- Editorial

        PENDING: The request has been receieved and queued for
            processing.

    s/receieved/received

- Below is Menachem's question, part of his OPS-DIR review:
As section 5.2 is labeled "I2RS Trace Log Mandatory Fields", I am wondering whether it is allowed to have additional optional fields. For example an optional "Additional Text" field may be useful, to provide additional information in certain situations.

[Ballot discuss]

I would like to DISCUSS the following point.
- From https:/https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06, section 2.1

      From [i2rs-arch], there are
      references throughout the document beginning in section 6.2.  Some
      specific examples include:

      ...

      o  section 6.3 notes that when local config preempts I2RS, external
          notification might be necessary

What about the local configuration, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15#section-6.3 ? Is this logged?
From the client address, it seems that local is not covered. Should it be?

  Client Address:  This is the network address of the Client that
      connected to the Agent.  For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6
      address.

[Ballot comment]
- Syslog rfc5424

Let's make the RFC2119 sentence clear (include the "If", and remove "example")
Background: last time I checked (about 6 months ago), RFC5424 was not implemented
OLD:
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, then existing logging
  infrastructure and capabilities of syslog [RFC5424] should be
  leveraged without the need to define or extend existing formats.  For
  example, the various fields described in Section 5.2 SHOULD be
  modeled and encoded as Structured Data Elements (referred to as "SD-
  ELEMENT"), as described in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5424].

NEW:
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, then existing logging
  infrastructure and capabilities of syslog [RFC5424] should be
  leveraged without the need to define or extend existing formats. 
  If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, the various fields
  described in Section 5.2 SHOULD be modeled and encoded as
  Structured Data Elements (referred to as "SD-
  ELEMENT"), as described in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5424].

- Out of the 3 methods for trace log retrieval (section 7.4), I was expecting the pub-sub to be THE method, and was expecting a MUST requirement.
Background: I just reviewed draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.
Do I miss anything?

- Editorial

        PENDING: The request has been receieved and queued for
            processing.

    s/receieved/received

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: i2rs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and Information Model) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Interface to the Routing System
WG (i2rs) to consider the following document:
- 'Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
  Information Model'
  as Informational RFC

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 2016-04-29. 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 describes a framework for traceability in the Interface
  to the Routing System (I2RS) and information model for that
  framework.  It specifies the motivation, requirements, use cases, and
  defines an information model for recording interactions between
  elements implementing the I2RS protocol.  This framework provides a
  consistent tracing interface for components implementing the I2RS
  architecture to record what was done, by which component, and when.
  It aims to improve the management of I2RS implementations, and can be
  used for troubleshooting, auditing, forensics, and accounting
  purposes.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Template date: 2/24/2012
Date of Shepherd report: 12/31/2015
Next update expected on: 1/6/2016

Type of RFC:  Standards document
This document is part of a series of documents that specify requirements for an I2RS protocol.
If possible, the I2RS protocol is to be created as an amalgamation of existing protocols that
can be combined to create the architecture described in the I2RS architecture document.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/). 

For example, the I2RS protocol could be be compromised of configuration and notification
from NETCONF/RESTConf) and an analytical protocol (e.g. IPFix).

The requirements for the first version of I2RS are:
1) model driven ephemeral state - that is data models that do not survive
    a software or hardware reboot. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/

2) a secure protocol -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements/

3) traceability - ability to record interactions between I2RS elements
(Client, Agent, Routing system)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

4) notification publication via subscription
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

5) Protocol to pass Data for Analytics 
The first version of these requirements does not include a
separate analytical protocol requirements as the simple use cases may
pass information via query/poll or the notifications.

The I2RS protocol exists in an secure environment described by:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs/

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. 

Technical Summary

  This document describes a framework for traceability in the Interface
  to the Routing System (I2RS) and information model for that
  framework.  It specifies the motivation, requirements, use cases, and
  defines an information model for recording interactions between
  elements implementing the I2RS protocol.  This framework provides a
  consistent tracing interface for components implementing the I2RS
  architecture to record what was done, by which component, and when.
  It aims to improve the management of I2RS implementations, and can be
  used for troubleshooting, auditing, forensics, and accounting
  purposes.
Working Group Summary
Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done on individual draft 5/26/2015 to 6/9/2015
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015

Document Quality

  This draft is comes out of the work with Open Daylight Project
  and other implementations of early I2RS protocols.

  A significant number of vendors have indicated their plan to
expand existing protocols to create an IRS amalgamate protocol.
A list includes the following: Cisco, Juniper, Huawei, Ericsson,
Google, Packetdesign (Client software) and others.

  Reviews of the requirement package did not change the traceability draft.
  The NETCONF reviewed the traceability document and found no additional
  requirements for the NETCONF or RESTCONF suite. 

  The security directorate QA review found that traceability did not by itself
  provide security's level of assurance or tracing.  Traceability  was targeted for logging
  information that adds to data assurance or tracing. 

  Routing QA review has been requested, but not assigned.

Personnel
Document shepherd:  Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD: Alia Atlas

(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.

Technical and editorial reviews were done at June and December.
Shepherd's report is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/kg-rAJBgBjs6KAw-Fm9cAarYAPg

Document will updated to latest revision of architecture and problem statement after
the WG LC for editorial closes on 1/6/2016. 

Routing-QA was requested in December, but not completed.
If possible, the Routing QA-Review will be sent at the same time.

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

Shephered is satisfied with QA-reviews performed to date, but
AD has indicated that a QA review is necessary prior to AD evaluation.

Final reviews from Security Directorate and OPS-DIR should be done on all
5 documents in the requirements suite.

NETCONF WG reviewers (July 2015) did not feel this requirement added to their
protocol requirements.  The traceability requirements exist to
document these requirements for other protocols.

(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.

Early SEC-DIR and OPS-DIR reviews were done on the I2RS architecture and
problem statement that form the basis for the 5 requirement documents.

Final reviews from Security Directorate and OPS-DIR should be done on all
5 documents in the requirements suite.

(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?

No specific concerns or issues on this document.

(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.

IPR reference for three authors:
Carlos Pignataro (cpignata@cisco.com) declared IPR in the following messages:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/w1e_SMfecJfpusawc6cZkxCl6q8

Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) (gsalguei@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/PxZxJ-0adUEBcIbGRCU_L-D6SNo

Joe Clarke (jclarke@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/0laWVg2Cv1mGFGxAA4G_QdkXGuI

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

No IPR disclosure

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 

Solid full WG agreement and discussion.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? 

No Appeals.

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

Nits are mentioned above.  I2RS architecture and problem statement references
are back-level, and will be updated once the I2RS architecture and problem statement
pass editorial WG LC on 1/6/2016.

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

Requirements document does not require MIB, Yang validation or URI reviews.

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

Yes.  All references are appropriate.

(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?

All normative references are coming as part of the
bundle with problem statement, architecture, and
protocol requirements. 

(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.

Architecture and problem statement currently have downward references,
but these will be changed on 1/6/2016. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? 
No RFC changed.  This is new work.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. 

No requests of IANA are made since this is a requirements document.

(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 registries are created or referenced.

(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.

ID-NITS done.  No XML, BNF, MIB or Yang so no validation required.

The Shepherd's write up is complete, but waiting on two things:
1) QA-Review from RTG-Directorate,
2) Revision of draft with following changes:
a) Informational status to standards status
b) Updated I2RS architeture and Problem statement revisions