I2NSF S. Hares
Internet-Draft J. Strassner
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: September 22, 2016 D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
L. Xia
Huawei
March 21, 2016
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Terminolgoy
draft-hares-i2nsf-terminology-01.txt
Abstract
This document defines a set of terms that are used for the Interface
to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) effort.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This document defines a set of terms that are used for the Interface
to Security Functions(I2NSF) effort. This section provides some
background on I2NSF, but a detailed problem statement can be found in
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases]
The purposeof the document is to unify the terminology used among all
the I2NSF documents.
Enterprises are now considering using network security functions
(NSFs) hosted by service providers due to the growing challenges and
complexity in maintaining a secure infrastructure, complying in
maintaining an up to date secure infrastructure that complies with
regulatory requirements while controlling costs. The hosted security
service is especially attractive to small and medium size enterprises
who suffer from a lack of security experts to continuously monitor,
acquire new skills and propose immediate mitigations to ever
increasing sets of security attacks. Small and medium-sized
businesses (SMBs) are increasingly adopting cloud-based security
services to replace on-premises security tools, while larger
enterprises are deploying a mix of traditional (hosted) and cloud-
based security services.
To meet the demand, more and more service providers are providing
hosted security solutions to deliver cost-effective managed security
services to enterprise customers. The hosted security services are
primarily targeted at enterprises, but could also be provided to any
kind of mass-market customers as well. The Network security
functions (NSFs) are provided and consumed in increasingly diverse
environments. Users of NSFs may consume network security services
hosted by one or more providers, which may be their own enterprise,
service providers, or a combination of both.
It is out of scope of this document to define exhaustive lists of
terms that are used in the security field in general; the reader is
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
invited to refer to other documents such as [RFC4949]. [RFC4949]
provides an excellent terminology glossary for the Internet Security
Area is in [RFC4949].
The reader may also refer to [RFC3198] for a terminology document on
policies (e.g., policy abstraction) and Policy-Based Management. The
wise reader will have these documents at hand while using this
terminology guide for I2NSF to provide additional answers.
2. Terminology
AAA: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting. See individual
definitions.
Abstraction: The definition of salient characteristics and behavior
of an object that distinguish it from all other types of objects.
It manages complexity by exposing common properties between
objects and processes while hiding detail that is not relevant.
Accounting: The act of collecting information on resource usage for
the purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost
allocation ([RFC2975] [RFC3539]
Access Control: Protection of system resources against unauthorized
access; a process by which use of system resources is regulated
according to a security policy and is permitted by only authorized
entities (users, programs, processes, or other systems) according
to that policy [RFC4949].
Acess Control List (ACL): This is a mechanism that implements
access control for a system resource by enumerating the system
entities that are permitted to access the resource and stating,
either implicitly or explicitly, the access modes granted to each
entity [RFC4949].
Action: Defines what is to be done when a set of conditions are
met (See I2NSF Action). (from
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model])
Authentication: The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the
form of a pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as
the originator of a message (message authentication) or as the
end-point of a channel (entity authentication) [RFC3539].
Authorization: The act of determining if a particular right, such
as access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter of a
particular credential [RFC3539].
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
Bespoke: Something made to fit a particular person, client or
company.
Bespoke security management: Security management systems which are
make to fit a particular customer.
Boolean Clause: A logical statement that evaluates to either TRUE
or FALSE. Also called Boolean Expression.
Capabilities: Defines a set of features that are available from a
managed entity. (See also I2NSF Capability.)
Capability Layer: Defines an abstraction layer that exposes a set
of capabilities of the I2NSF system.
Condition: A set of attributes, features, and/or values that are to
be compared with a set of known attributes, features, and/or
values in order to make a decision. A Condition, when used in the
context of a Policy Rule, is used to determine whether or not the
set of Actions in that Policy Rule can be executed or not.
Examples of an I2NSF Condition include matching attributes of a
packet or flow, and comparing the internal state of a NSF to a
desired state. (from
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model])
Constraint: A constraint is a limitation or restriction.
Constraints may be associated with any type of object (e.g.,
events, conditions, and actions in Policy Rules).
Constraint Programming: A type of programming that uses
constraints to define relations between variables in order to find
a feasible (and not necessarily optimal) solution.
Context: The Context of an Entity is a collection of measured and/
or inferred knowledge that describe the state and the environment
in which an Entity exists or has existed. (from
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html)
Controller: TBD [Editorial: The definition is lacking content
("used interchangeably with Service Provider Security Controller
or management system throughout this document") and overloaded -
the two terms should be split into two separate definitions in
documents.]
Customer: A business role of an entity that is involved in the
definition, consumption of services, and the possible negotiation
of a contract to use services from a Provider.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
Data Model: Representation of concepts of interest to an
environment in a form that is dependent on data repository, data
definition language, query language, implementation language, and
protocol (typically one or more of these ). (from
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). [Editorial: this
is This definition is different from that of RFC3198. See the
referenced draft for specifics. ]
Event: An Event is defined as any important occurrence in time of
a change in the system being managed, and/or in the environment of
the system being managed. Examples of an I2NSF Event include
time, traffic profile, and user actions (e.g. logon, logoff, and
actions that violate an ACL.) An Event, when used in the context
of a Policy Rule, is used to determine whether the condition
clause of an imperative Policy Rule can be evaluated or not.
(from [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]).
ECA: Event - Condition - Action policy.
Firewall (FW): Refers to a function that restricts data
communication traffic to and from one of the connected networks
(the one said to be "inside" the firewall) and thus protects that
network's system resources against threats from the other network
(the one that is said to be "outside" the firewall) [RFC4949].
See also [I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls].
Flow-based NSF: A NSF that inspects network flows according to
policies intended for enforcing security properties. Flow-based
security also means that packets are inspected in the order they
are received, and without modification to the packet due to the
inspection process (MAC rewrites, TTL decrement action, or NAT
inspection or changes).
I2NSF Action: An I2NSF Action is a special type of Action that is
used to control and monitor aspects of flow-based Network Security
Functions. Examples of I2NSF Actions include providing intrusion
detection and/or protection, web and flow filtering, and deep
packet inspection for packets and flows. An I2NSF Action, when
used in the context of a I2NSF Policy Rule, may be executed when
both the event and the condition clauses of its owning I2NSF
Policy Rule evaluate to true. The execution of this action may be
influenced by applicable metadata. (see
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]).
I2NSF Capability: Defines a set of features that are available
from an NSF server.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
I2NSF server: A software instance that implements a network
security function that receives provisioning information and
requests for operational data (e.g. monitoring data) from an I2NSF
client. It is also responsible for enforcing the policies that it
receives from an I2NSF client
I2NSF client: A software component that follows the I2NSF
framework to read, write or change provisioning and operational
aspects for the NSFs it attaches to.
I2NSF Management System: I2NSF client operates within a network
management system, which serves as a collection and distribution
point for I2NSF security provisioning and filtering of data.
I2NSF Policy: A set of rules that are used to manage and control
the changing or maintaining of the state of an NSF instance.
I2NSF Policy Rule: A policy rule that is adapted for I2NSF. The
I2NSF Policy Rule is assumed to be in ECA form (i.e., an
imperative structure). Other types of programming paradigms
(e.g., declarative and functional) are currently out of scope. An
example of an I2NSF Policy Rule is, in pseudo-code:
IF <event-clause> is TRUE
IF <condition-clause> is TRUE
THEN execute <action-clause>
END-IF
END-IF
In the above example, the Event, Condition, and Action portions of
a Policy Rule are all **Boolean Clauses**.
I2NSF Registry: A registry that contains I2NSF capability
information that can be controlled by I2NSF Management System.
I2NSF System: Refers to the collection of I2NSF functional elements
that contribute to provide the I2NSF service.
Information Model: A representation of concepts of interest to an
environment in a form that is independent of data repository, data
definition language, query language, implementation language, and
protocol. (from [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]).
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
Interface: Is the set of operations one object knows it can invoke
(or expose to) on another object. It is a subset of all
operations that a given object implements. An example of multiple
interfaces can be seen by considering the interfaces include a
firewall uses. A firewall can have: multiple interfaces for data
packets to traverse through and an interface for a controller to
impose policy, or retrieve the results of execution of a policy
rule. The same object may have multiple types of interfaces to
serve different (functional) purposes.
Intrusion Detection System (IDS): A system which detects network
intrusions via a variety of filters, monitors, and/or probes. An
IDS may be stateful or stateless.
Intrusion Protection System (IPS): A system that protect against
network intrusions. An IPS may be stateful or stateless.
Metadata: Data that provides information about other data. IETF
network management protocols (e.g. NETCONF/RESTCONF/IPFix) or
IETF routing interfaces (I2RS), and the I2NSF security interface
may each utilize Metadata to describe and/or prescribe
characteristics and behavior of the YANG data models.
Middlebox: Is defined as any intermediary device performing
functions other than the normal, standard functions of an IP
router on the datagram path between a source host and destination
host [RFC3234].
Network security function (NSF): Is a function that is provided as
set of security-related service function. Typically, an NSF may
be responsible for detecting unwanted activity and blocking/
mitigating the effect of such unwanted activity in order to fulfil
the service requirements. The NSF can help in supporting
communication stream integrity and confidentiality.
OCL (the Object Constraint Language) A constraint programming
language that is used to specify constraints in UML. is used to
specify constraints in UML. (from http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html)
Policy Rule: A set of rules that are used to manage and control
the changing or maintaining of the state of one or more managed
objects. Often this is shorterned to Rule or Policy. (from
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). An I2NSF Policy
Rule is assumed to be in ECA form (i.e., an imperative structure).
Other types of programming paradigms (e.g., declarative and
functional) are currently out of scope. For the complete
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
definition of an I2NSF Policy Rule please see above. (see above
I2NSF policy rule).
Profile: A structured representation of information that
characterizes the capabilities of an objectin a given context.
This may be used to simplify how this object interacts with other
objects in its environment. [Editors note: John Strassner
suggestse this is a simplified definition from a variety of
sources (UAProf and CC/PP). It does not mention the concept of
preference, therefore John wonders if we need a different
definition here.]
Registry: A logically centralized location containing data of a
particular type; it may optionally contain metadata,
relationships, and other aspects of the registered data in order
to use those data effectively. An I2NSF registry is used to
contain capability information that can be controlled by the
controller.
Registration Interface: An interface dedicated to requesting,
receiving, editing, and deleting information in a registry.
Service Layer: The Service Layer (also called Client-Facing
Interface) enables clients to manage security policies for their
specific flows. [Editorial: Med suggest picking on eterm. ]
Service Provider Security Controller: TBD (Editorial: Place holder
for a split between controller and security controller
definition.)
Tenant: A tenant is a group of users that share common access
privileges to the same software. An I2NSF tenant may be physical
or virtual, and may run on a variety of systems or servers.
Vendor Facing Interface: The Vendor Facing Interface enables
vendors to register their NSFs, along with the capabilities of
their NSFs, with a logically centralized authority.
Editorial note on all Virtual functions: [MED] suggests removing
virtual as the I2NSF does not make any assumptions about how
things are created. Since this is a larger question - this
section is left in with MED's note.
Virtual NSF: A NSF that is deployed as a distributed virtual
device.
Virtual Network Function (VNF): A virtualized network component
such as a router, switch, security box, or AAA Servier.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
VNFM (VNF Manager): Manager of virtual network functions that
creates, deletes, manages, and moves VNFs.
VNFPool: A collection of interchangeable VNFs (i.e., each VNF has
the same set of capabilities).
Virtualization: Virtualization is a type of software that creates
a non-physical version of an object. Examples include virtualized
operating systems, storagte devices, and networking elements.
[Editoris notes: Questions from John: Do we want or need to
differentiate between different tyeps of virtualization? For
example: full vs. partial vs. para-virtualization (all types of
"hardware virtualization")? Do we need to introduce OS
virtualization? What about application virtualization?]
3. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations exist for this document.
4. Security Considerations
This is a terminology document with no security considerations.
5. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis]
Hares, S., Moskowitz, R., and D. Zhang, "Analysis of
Existing work for I2NSF", draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis-00
(work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases]
Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Lopez, D., Zarny, M., and C.
Jacquenet, "I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases", draft-
ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00 (work in progress),
February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
Bogdanovic, D., Koushik, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06 (work in progress),
December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls]
Baker, F. and P. Hoffman, "On Firewalls in Internet
Security", draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 (work in
progress), October 2012.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]
Strassner, J., Halpern, J., and J. Coleman, "Generic
Policy Information Model for Simplified Use of Policy
Abstractions (SUPA)", draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-
info-model-04 (work in progress), February 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to
Accounting Management", RFC 2975, DOI 10.17487/RFC2975,
October 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2975>.
[RFC3198] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling,
M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry,
J., and S. Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based
Management", RFC 3198, DOI 10.17487/RFC3198, November
2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3198>.
[RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
Issues", RFC 3234, DOI 10.17487/RFC3234, February 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3234>.
[RFC3539] Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and
Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", RFC 3539,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3539, June 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3539>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares
Huawei
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
USA
Phone: +1-734-604-0332
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Terminology March 2016
John Strassner
Huawei
Santa Clara, CA
USA
Email: John.Strassner@huawei.com
Diego R. Lopex
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
Madrid 28006
Spain
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Liang Xia (Frank)
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing , Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]