Hi Clyde, Thank you for responding to my comments. I am OK with all of your responses. Best, Yaron On 19/02/18 13:02, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) wrote:
Yaron, Thanks for your review. My answers are inline as [clw1]. On 2/18/18, 6:31 AM, "Yaron Sheffer" <yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer Review result: Has IssuesGeneral Comments * The semantics of pattern matching is not clear: "and/or the message text" -are there cases where you only match the text but not the facility/severity? *[clw1] Yes. There are three cases: 1. Match on facility/severity; 2. Match on the regex pattern; 3. Match on both facility/severity and the regex pattern.It's very confusing to specify rollover in minutes, but retention in hours. People are bound to get this one wrong. [clw1] I will change the retention to minutes unless others object. * Interface selection: the feature makes sense, but I think the description is incorrect. "This leaf sets the source interface to be used to send messages to the remote syslog server. If not set, messages sent to a remote syslog server will contain the IP address of the interface the syslog message uses to exit the network element". AFAIK the source IP will always correspond to the interface, but this feature allows you to select a particular one. [clw1] You are correct. I will modify the description to make this clearer. How about: "This leaf sets the source interface to be used to send messages to the remote syslog server. If not set, messages can be sent on any interface." * Usage examples: the second example lists a specific IPv6 address, but the Yang snippet shows a domain name. [clw1] Thanks for catching this error. I will fix this in the next revision. * A generic question (I am new to the Yang ecosystem): I understand most implementers will use this module from https://github.com/YangModels/yang/blob/master/standard/ietf/DRAFT/ietf-syslog.yang - is this the expectation? If so, why not add a link from the RFC into the repo, to make it easier for people to find? [clw1] It is standard practice to include the model in the RFC AFAIK. I have not seen github links published in any other RFCs.Security Comments * I think almost all writable data nodes here are sensitive, because a networkattacker's first move is to block any logging on the host, and many of the data nodes here can be used for this purpose. [clw1] I will reword the security section to include all writeable nodes as sensitive. * Re: readable data nodes, I'm not sure which are sensitive, and the document should give an example or two rather than just say "some". Otherwise the security advice is not actionable. One example: "remote" sections leak information about other hosts in the network. [clw1] This text was lifted from another model. I will review the readable nodes and update. * Write operations... can have a negative effect on network operations. - I would add "and on network security", because logs are often used to detect security breaches. [clw1] I will add this phrase. * Also add an advice, similar to the one on "pattern match", that the private key used for signing log messages MUST NOT be used for any other purpose, and that the implementation of this data node must ensure this property (I'm not sure how). The rationale: if the TLS private key is used, for example, this could result in a signing oracle for TLS and eventually a MITM attack. [clw1] I will add this advice. Thanks, Clyde
