Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Mutual X.509 Authentication
draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-10

[Ballot comment]

- section 2: be no harm to say the server has to send a
CertificateRequest as part of the handshake and/or to say (or
point to) how e.g. to configure that in apache or similar.
(Not normatively, but as an illustration to save folks time
when they go to do it.)

- section 7, if we get the ID via step (b) option 2 and step
(c) option A then anyone certified below that CA gets to use
that identity. I'd say that's a sufficiently bad plan in
almost all cases to be worth noting as a security
consideration.  (Sorry for not spotting that in RFC7407 but I
think the alg there is harder to see in the yang module(s) so
I guess I missed it;-)

- I agree with Sam's second comment in the secdir review [1]
that specifying how to fingerprint is a good idea, even if
it's non-normative. I think in this case you may need to
fingerprint the full certificate and not the public key, as
the latter could allow attacks - but someone would need to
spend more time that I have today to figure out if there are
any interesting attacks. (Did the WG think those issues
through?)

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05522.html

[Ballot comment]
I found the discussion on the SecDir review interesting, so thanks for the more detailed explanations.  I do agree that the draft already does state that this is a certificate fingerprint, but don't see (maybe point me to where it is if I missed it), that this is all local, per:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05526.html

I'm wondering why the yang model that was spilt out into another draft isn't referenced as that would be helpful as well (last 2 paragraphs of Tom's response):
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05524.html

This is non blocking as I'd like to figure out if it's helpful to avoid questions and link drafts where appropriate (unless I missed something).

Thanks,
Kathleen

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 5 --

  presented X.509 certificate may also be considered valid if it
  matches a locally configured certificate fingerprint.  If X.509
  certificate path validation fails and the presented X.509 certificate
  does not match a locally configured certificate fingerprint,

It's probably worth it here to allow for things such as DANE, by slightly changing the wording.  what do you think of this, perhaps?:

NEW
  presented X.509 certificate may also be considered valid if it
  matches one obtained by another trusted mechanism, such as
  using a locally configured certificate fingerprint.  If X.509
  certificate path validation fails and the presented X.509 certificate
  does not match a certificate obtained by a trusted mechanism,
END

Does something like that make sense?  Or is it better to limit it to preconfigured certs?

-- Section 7 --

        Similarily, if the
        username does not comply to the NETCONF requirements on
        usernames [RFC6241] (i.e., the username is not representable in
        XML)

Checking: Is "not representable in XML" really the only way the username would not comply?  That is, is "i.e." correct here, or do you mean "e.g."?

-- Section 9 --

  If third-
  party authentication is needed, the SSH transport can be used.

Very small point: you have four citations to 6242 in two paragraphs in Section 3, but none here.  This would probably be a good place to stick another citation.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-09.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, IANA is required complete a single action.

In the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

the existing port number 6513 for TCP, described as "NETCONF over TLS" will have its reference changed from RFC5539 to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed 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:  (Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Mutual X.509 Authentication) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG
(netconf) to consider the following document:
- 'Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
  Mutual X.509 Authentication'
  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 2015-03-11. 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.

Abstract


  The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to
  install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices.
  This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
  protocol with mutual X.509 authentication to secure the exchange of
  NETCONF messages.  This revision of RFC 5539 documents the new
  message framing used by NETCONF 1.1 and it obsoletes RFC 5539.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis/ballot/


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

(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?

This document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates
it as such in the document.

(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

  The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to
  install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices.
  This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
  protocol with mutual X.509 authentication to secure the exchange of
  NETCONF messages.  This revision of RFC 5539 documents the new
  message framing used by NETCONF 1.1 and it obsoletes RFC 5539.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

Since the start of the work end of 2012, the focus has been changed
to remove call home functionality and to split the server configuration
data model into another draft. There were no controversial or difficult
decisions.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

This document revises RFC 5539 by defining the chunked framing
mechanism used if both peers adverstise the :base:1.1 capability.
As such all implementations of NETCONF 1.1 that want to use TLS
with mutual X.509 authentication have to use this new framing
format. The document is clear and well written, and it has been
extensively reviewed. There are implementations with different
code base of different draft versions available.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

The document shepherd is Mehmet Ersue. The responsible AD is Benoit Claise.

(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.

The document shepherd has followed the development of the document
through the WG, and have reviewed the document.
There was one comment after the end of the Last Call which resulted
to changes. The issue has been addressed by the authors before AD review.

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

No, the document shepherd does not have any concerns about the amount
of review the document has received.

(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.

No.

(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, the document shepherd does not have any specific concerns. There are
no issues remaining.

(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.

The WG and authors have been polled on February 2, 2015. The WG members
did not disclose any IPR. The authors confirmed publicly that they don't
own any IPR on the draft.

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

There is no IPR disclosure filed. The authors confirmed publicly that
they don't own any IPR on the draft.

(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 from diverse individuals, who have voiced support
for the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 are no nits in draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-09.

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

No formal review criteria encountered.

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

Yes.

(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?

There is one normative reference to draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09, which is
through IETF LC and in IESG evaluation.

(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.

This document obsoletes RFC 5539, which has been listed and discussed
in the Introduction section.

(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).

The IANA considerations section details the changes that are required
as a result of this draft replacing an existing RFC which had a IANA
registry entry.

(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.

The existing IANA registry for netconf-tls needs to be updated to
reference the RFC number of this document.

(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.

None necessary.