Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers
draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-04

[Ballot comment]
I cleared my DISCUSS, based on e-mail from Alain Durand.

For clarification, based on Alain's response, I suggest adding
text explaining that the recommendations apply to current
logging practice and port sharing does not require any changes
in the way logging is performed; e.g., which packets are
examined and logged.

Editorial: I suggest the following minor change for clarity in section 2:

OLD:

  logging incoming IP addresses

NEW:

  logging source IP addresses from inbound IP traffic

[Ballot comment]
Editorial: I suggest the following minor change for clarity in section 2:

OLD:

  logging incoming IP addresses

NEW:

  logging source IP addresses from inbound IP traffic

[Ballot discuss]
I have one quick questions that should be easy to resolve.

The document is mute on the subject of which inbound packets should be subject to logging.  Does the logging of the additional information have any effect on which packets should be logged, or is the current common practice for logging sufficient for logging srcaddr/port/time?

[Ballot discuss]
For the security area review:

Please add a few other items to be considered out-of-scope or add additional security considerations.  Since the document already mentions that record retention is out-of-scope, it would be useful to add that server security and transport security is important for the protection of logs for Internet facing systems.    After stating that it is an important consideration, then state something to the effect of the service provider must consider the risks, including the data and services on the server to determine the appropriate measures.

The protection of logs is critical in incident investigations.  If logs are tampered with, evidence could be destroyed.

[Ballot comment]
Please provide references for  "NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite."

If DS-Lite has a full name it should be used.

NTP (need a ref)  is not necessarily a traceable time source, it is certainly not a definitive source of time for legal purposes.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers) to BCP


The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers'
  as a BCP

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 2011-03-11. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations/

State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
I have reviewed this draft and I believe it is ready to move forward. IETF Last Call has been requested. I do have two suggestions for changes, and would like to ask the authors to update the document (even during the last call that will probably start today).

Jari

> According to the most recent predictions, the global IPv4 address
> free pool at IANA will exhaust sometime in 2011.

This could now be written in a different way.

> Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not
> immediately foreseen in IPv6
I would really like to see this change: s/immediately foreseen/foreseen/

Jari

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Julien Laganier is the document shepherd for this document. He has
personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members.The document
shepherd does not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of
the reviews received.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(1.e) 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 solid WG consensus behind this document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been expressed
regarding this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document shepherd has personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative and informative sections.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document has an IANA considerations section and no IANA
considerations that needs to be taken care of.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) 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

In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing
techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log
port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP
address.

Working Group Summary

There is solid WG consensus behind the recommendation being made by
this document

Document Quality

The recommendation is already implemented in a certain number of situations.