draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00.txt | draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-01.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
I2NSF S. Hares | I2NSF S. Hares | |||
Internet-Draft J. Strassner | Internet-Draft J. Strassner | |||
Intended status: Informational Huawei | Intended status: Informational Huawei | |||
Expires: October 29, 2016 D. Lopez | Expires: January 29, 2017 D. Lopez | |||
Telefonica I+D | Telefonica I+D | |||
L. Xia | L. Xia | |||
Huawei | Huawei | |||
April 29, 2016 | July 8, 2016 | |||
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Terminology | Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Terminology | |||
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00.txt | draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-01.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document defines a set of terms that are used for the Interface | This document defines a set of terms that are used for the Interface | |||
to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) effort. | to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) effort. | |||
Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current | |||
Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | |||
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other | |||
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts | documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts | |||
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in | as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in | |||
progress." | progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2016. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2017. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | |||
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | |||
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | |||
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided | Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided | |||
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 6.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
This document defines the terminology for the Interface to Network | This document defines the terminology for the Interface to Network | |||
Security Functions(I2NSF) effort. This section provides some | Security Functions (I2NSF) effort. This section provides some | |||
background on I2NSF; a detailed problem statement can be found in | background on I2NSF; a detailed problem statement can be found in | |||
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases]. Motivation and comparison to | [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases]. Motivation and comparison to | |||
previous work can be found in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis]. | previous work can be found in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis]. | |||
Enterprises are now considering using network security functions | Enterprises are now considering using network security functions | |||
(NSFs) hosted by service providers due to the growing challenges and | (NSFs) hosted by service providers due to the growing challenges and | |||
complexity in maintaining an up to date secure infrastructure that | complexity in maintaining an up-to-date secure infrastructure that | |||
complies with regulatory requirements, while controlling costs. The | complies with regulatory requirements, while controlling costs. The | |||
hosted security service is especially attractive to small and medium | hosted security service is especially attractive to small- and | |||
size enterprises who suffer from a lack of security experts to | medium-size enterprises who suffer from a lack of security experts | |||
continuously monitor, acquire new skills and propose immediate | to continuously monitor, acquire new skills and propose immediate | |||
mitigations to ever increasing sets of security attacks. Small and | mitigations to ever increasing sets of security attacks. Small- and | |||
medium-sized businesses (SMBs) are increasingly adopting cloud-based | medium-sized businesses (SMBs) are increasingly adopting cloud-based | |||
security services to replace on-premises security tools, while larger | security services to replace on-premises security tools, while larger | |||
enterprises are deploying a mix of traditional (hosted) and cloud- | enterprises are deploying a mix of traditional (hosted) and cloud- | |||
based security services. | based security services. | |||
To meet the demand, more and more service providers are providing | To meet the demand, more and more service providers are providing | |||
hosted security solutions to deliver cost-effective managed security | hosted security solutions to deliver cost-effective managed security | |||
services to enterprise customers. The hosted security services are | services to enterprise customers. The hosted security services are | |||
primarily targeted at enterprises, but could also be provided to any | primarily targeted at enterprises, but could also be provided to | |||
kind of mass-market customers as well. NSFs are provided and | mass-market customers as well. NSFs are provided and consumed in | |||
consumed in increasingly diverse environments. Users of NSFs may | increasingly diverse environments. Users of NSFs may consume | |||
consume network security services hosted by one or more providers, | network security services hosted by one or more providers, which | |||
which may be their own enterprise, service providers, or a | may be their own enterprise, service providers, or a combination | |||
combination of both. | of both. | |||
It is out of scope in this document to define an exhaustive list of | It is out of scope in this document to define an exhaustive list of | |||
terms that are used in the security field; the reader is referred to | terms that are used in the security field; the reader is referred to | |||
other applicable documents, such as [RFC4949]. | other applicable documents, such as [RFC4949]. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Conventions Used in This Document | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | ||||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in | ||||
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. In | ||||
this document, these words will appear with that interpretation | ||||
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to | ||||
be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. | ||||
3. Terminology | ||||
AAA: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting. See individual | AAA: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting. See individual | |||
definitions. | definitions. | |||
Abstraction: The definition of the salient characteristics and | Abstraction: The definition of the salient characteristics and | |||
behavior of an object that distinguish it from all other types of | behavior of an object that distinguish it from all other types of | |||
objects. It manages complexity by exposing common properties | objects. It manages complexity by exposing common properties | |||
between objects and processes while hiding detail that is not | between objects and processes while hiding detail that is not | |||
relevant. | relevant. | |||
Access Control: Protection of system resources against unauthorized | Access Control: Protection of system resources against unauthorized | |||
access; a process by which use of system resources is regulated | access; a process by which use of system resources is regulated | |||
according to a security policy, and is permitted by only | according to a security policy, and is permitted by only | |||
authorized entities (users, programs, processes, or other systems) | authorized entities (users, programs, processes, or other systems) | |||
according to that policy [RFC4949]. | according to that policy [RFC4949]. | |||
Accounting: The act of collecting information on resource usage for | Accounting: The act of collecting information on resource usage for | |||
the purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost | the purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost | |||
allocation ([RFC2975] [RFC3539] | allocation ([RFC2975] [RFC3539]). | |||
ACL (Acess Control List): This is a mechanism that implements | ACL (Acess Control List): This is a mechanism that implements | |||
access control for a system resource by enumerating the system | access control for a system resource by enumerating the system | |||
entities that are permitted to access the resource and stating, | entities that are permitted to access the resource and stating, | |||
either implicitly or explicitly, the access modes granted to each | either implicitly or explicitly, the access modes granted to each | |||
entity [RFC4949]. A YANG description is defined in | entity [RFC4949]. A YANG description is defined in | |||
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]. | [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]. | |||
Action: Defines what is to be done when a set of conditions are | Action: Defines what is to be done when a set of Conditions are | |||
met (See I2NSF Action). (from | met (See I2NSF Action). (from | |||
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]) | [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). | |||
Authentication: The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the | Assertion: Defined by the ITU in [X.1252] as "a statement made by | |||
form of a pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as | an entity without accompanying evidence of its validity". In the | |||
the originator of a message (message authentication) or as the | context of I2NSF, an assertion MAY include metadata about all or | |||
end-point of a channel (entity authentication) [RFC3539]. | part of the assertion (e.g., context of the assertion, or about | |||
timestamp indicating the point in time the assertion was | ||||
created). The validity of an assertion cannot be verified. | ||||
(from [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]). | ||||
Authorization: The act of determining if a particular right, such | Authentication: Defined in [RFC4949] as "the process of verifying | |||
as access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter of a | a claim that a system entity or system resource has a certain | |||
particular credential [RFC3539]. | attribute value." (from [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]). | |||
Authorization: Defined in [RFC4949] as "an approval that is granted | ||||
to a system entity to access a system resource." | ||||
(from [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]). | ||||
B2B: Business-to-Business. | B2B: Business-to-Business. | |||
Bespoke: Something made to fit a particular person, customer, or | Bespoke: Something made to fit a particular person, customer, or | |||
company. | company. | |||
Bespoke security management: Security management systems that are | Bespoke security management: Security management systems that are | |||
make to fit a particular customer. | make to fit a particular customer. | |||
Boolean Clause: A logical statement that evaluates to either TRUE | Boolean Clause: A logical statement that evaluates to either TRUE | |||
or FALSE. Also called Boolean Expression. | or FALSE. Also called Boolean Expression. | |||
Capability: Defines a set of features that are available from a | Capability: Defines a set of features that are available from a | |||
managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). | managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Examples of "managed | |||
entities" are NSFs and Controllers, where NSF Capabilities and | ||||
Controller Capabilities define functionality of an NSF and about | ||||
Controller, respectively. These functions may, but do not have | ||||
to, be used. All Capabilities are announced through the | ||||
Registration Interface. | ||||
Capability Layer: Defines an abstraction layer that exposes a set | Capability Interface: An interface dedicated to requesting, | |||
of capabilities of the I2NSF system. | receiving, editing, and deleting capability information. | |||
Condition: A set of attributes, features, and/or values that are to | Client: See Consumer. [Editor's note: placeholder for gradually | |||
replacing Client with Consumer, since Client is too vague and | ||||
has other connotations (e.g., client-server)]. | ||||
Client-Facing Interface: See Consumer-Facing Interface. | ||||
See also: Interface, NSF-Facing Interface. | ||||
Component: An encapsulation of software that communicates using | ||||
Interfaces. A Component may be implemented by hardware and/or | ||||
software, and be represented using a set of classes. In general, | ||||
a Component encapsulates a set of data structures and a set of | ||||
algorithms that implement the function(s) that it provides. | ||||
Consumer: A Consumer is a Role that is assigned to an I2NSF | ||||
Component that can receive information from another I2NSF | ||||
Component. See also: Provider, Role. | ||||
Consumer-Facing Interface: An Interface dedicated to communication | ||||
with Consumers of NSF data and Services. This is typically | ||||
defined per I2NSF administrative domain. See also: Interface, | ||||
NSF-Facing Interface. | ||||
Condition: A set of attributes, features, and/or values that are to | ||||
be compared with a set of known attributes, features, and/or | be compared with a set of known attributes, features, and/or | |||
values in order to make a decision. A Condition, when used in the | 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 | 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. | set of Actions in that Policy Rule can be executed or not. | |||
Examples of an I2NSF Condition include matching attributes of a | Examples of an I2NSF Condition include matching attributes of a | |||
packet or flow, and comparing the internal state of a NSF to a | packet or flow, and comparing the internal state of a NSF to a | |||
desired state. [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model] | desired state. (from [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). | |||
Constraint: A constraint is a limitation or restriction. | Constraint: A Constraint is a limitation or restriction. | |||
Constraints may be associated with any type of object (e.g., | Constraints may be associated with any type of object (e.g., | |||
events, conditions, and actions in Policy Rules). | Events, Conditions, and Actions in Policy Rules). | |||
Constraint Programming: A type of programming that uses constraints | Constraint Programming: A type of programming that uses constraints | |||
to define relations between variables in order to find a | to define relations between variables in order to find a | |||
feasible (and not necessarily optimal) solution. | feasible (and not necessarily optimal) solution. | |||
Context: The Context of an Entity is a collection of measured and/ | Context: The Context of an Entity is a collection of measured and/ | |||
or inferred knowledge that describe the state and the environment | or inferred knowledge that describe the state and the environment | |||
in which an Entity exists or has existed. (from | in which an Entity exists or has existed. (from | |||
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html) | http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html). | |||
Controller: TBD [Editorial: The definition is lacking content | Controller: A Controller is a management Component that contains | |||
("used interchangeably with Service Provider Security Controller | control plane functions to manage and facilitate information | |||
or management system throughout this document") and overloaded - | sharing, as well as execute security functions. This definition | |||
the two terms should be split into two separate definitions in | is based on that in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]. | |||
documents.] | ||||
Control Plane: In the context of I2NSF, the Control Plane is an | ||||
architectural Component that provides common control functions | ||||
to all I2NSF Components, including some or all of the following: | ||||
authentication, authorization, accounting, auditing, and | ||||
Capability discovery and negotiation. The Control Plane | ||||
orchestrates the operation of the Data Plane according to | ||||
guidance and/or input from the Management Plane. I2NSF Components | ||||
with Interfaces to the Control Plane have knowledge of the | ||||
Capabilities of other I2NSF Components within a particular I2NSF | ||||
administrative domain. This definition is based on that in | ||||
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]. See also: Data Plane, Management | ||||
Plane. | ||||
Customer: A business role of an entity that is involved in the | Customer: A business role of an entity that is involved in the | |||
definition and/or consumption of services, and the possible | definition and/or consumption of services, and the possible | |||
negotiation of a contract to use services from a Provider. | negotiation of a contract to use services from a Provider. | |||
DC: Data Center | DC: Data Center | |||
Data Model: A representation of concepts of interest to an | Data Model: A representation of concepts of interest to an | |||
environment in a form that is dependent on data repository, data | environment in a form that is dependent on data repository, data | |||
definition language, query language, implementation language, and | definition language, query language, implementation language, and | |||
protocol (typically one or more of these ) | protocol (typically one or more of these ). Note the difference | |||
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | between a data **model** and a data **structure**. | |||
[I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | ||||
Data Plane: In the context of I2NSF, the Data Plane is an | ||||
architectural Component that provides operational functions to | ||||
enable an I2NSF Component to provide and consume packets and | ||||
flows. See also: Control Plane, Management Plane. | ||||
Data Structure: A low-level building block that is used in | ||||
programming to implement an algorithm. A data model typically | ||||
contains multiple types of data structures; however, a data | ||||
structure does not contain a data model. Note the difference | ||||
between a data **model** and a data **structure**. | ||||
Event: An important occurrence in time of a change in the system | Event: An important occurrence in time of a change in the system | |||
being managed, and/or in the environment of the system being | being managed, and/or in the environment of the system being | |||
managed. Examples of an I2NSF Event include time and user actions | managed. Examples of an I2NSF Event include time and user actions | |||
(e.g. logon, logoff, and actions that violate an ACL). An Event, | (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 | when used in the context of a Policy Rule, is used to determine | |||
whether the condition clause of an imperative Policy Rule can be | whether the Condition clause of an imperative Policy Rule can be | |||
evaluated or not [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | evaluated or not (from [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). | |||
ECA: Event - Condition - Action policy (a type of Policy Rule). | ECA: Event - Condition - Action (a type of Policy Rule). | |||
Firewall (FW): A function that restricts data communication traffic | Firewall (FW): A function that restricts data communication traffic | |||
to and from one of the connected networks (the one said to be | to and from one of the connected networks (the one said to be | |||
'inside' the firewall), and thus protects that network's system | 'inside' the firewall), and thus protects that network's system | |||
resources against threats from the other network (the one that | resources against threats from the other network (the one that | |||
is said to be 'outside' the firewall) [RFC4949]. | is said to be 'outside' the firewall) [RFC4949]. | |||
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls] | [I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls] | |||
Flow-based NSF: A NSF that inspects network flows according to a | Flow-based NSF: A NSF that inspects network flows according to a | |||
set of policies intended for enforcing security properties. Flow- | set of policies intended for enforcing security properties. Flow- | |||
based security also means that packets are inspected in the order | based security also means that packets are inspected in the order | |||
they are received, and without modification to the packet due to | they are received, and without modification to the packet due to | |||
the inspection process. | the inspection process. | |||
I2NSF Action: An I2NSF Action is a special type of Action that is | I2NSF Action: An I2NSF Action is a special type of Action that is | |||
used to control and monitor aspects of flow-based Network Security | used to control and monitor aspects of flow-based Network Security | |||
Functions. Examples of I2NSF Actions include providing intrusion | Functions. Examples of I2NSF Actions include providing intrusion | |||
detection and/or protection, web and flow filtering, and deep | detection and/or protection, web and flow filtering, and deep | |||
packet inspection for packets and flows. An I2NSF Action, when | packet inspection for packets and flows. An I2NSF Action, when | |||
used in the context of a I2NSF Policy Rule, may be executed 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 | both the Event and the Condition clauses of its owning I2NSF | |||
Policy Rule evaluate to true. The execution of this action may be | Policy Rule evaluate to true. The execution of this Action may be | |||
influenced by applicable metadata | influenced by applicable metadata. (from | |||
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). | |||
I2NSF Agent: A software component in a device that implements an | I2NSF Agent: A software Component in a device that implements an | |||
NSF. It receives provisioning information and requests for | NSF. It receives provisioning information and requests for | |||
operational data (e.g., monitoring data) from an I2NSF client. It | operational data (e.g., monitoring data) from an I2NSF Consumer. | |||
is also responsible for enforcing the policies that it receives | It is also responsible for enforcing the policies that it | |||
from an I2NSF client. | receives from an I2NSF Consumer. | |||
I2NSF Capability: A set of features that are available from an NSF | I2NSF Capability: A set of features that are available from an NSF | |||
server. | Server or an NSF Controller. While both are Capabilities, the | |||
former defines functions that are available from an NSF, whereas | ||||
the latter defines functions that are available from a security | ||||
Controller or other Management Entity. This definition is based | ||||
on that in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]. | ||||
I2NSF client: A software component that uses the I2NSF framework | I2NSF Client: See I2NSF Consumer. | |||
I2NSF Component: A Component that provides one or more I2NSF | ||||
Services. I2NSF Components are managed and communicate with other | ||||
I2NSF Components using I2NSF Interfaces. | ||||
I2NSF Consumer: A software Component that uses the I2NSF framework | ||||
to read, write, and/or change provisioning and operational aspects | to read, write, and/or change provisioning and operational aspects | |||
of the NSFs that it attaches to. | of the NSFs that it attaches to. | |||
I2NSF Management System: I2NSF clients operate within a network | I2NSF Consumer Interface: An Interface dedicated to requesting and | |||
management system, which serves as a collection and distribution | using I2NSF Services. For example, this Interface could be used | |||
point for I2NSF security provisioning and filters data. | to request a set of Flow Security policies from an I2NSF | |||
Controller or from one or more individual NSFs. The difference is | ||||
that the former uses more abstract Condition matching (e.g., | ||||
based on tenant or customer ID), whereas the latter uses more | ||||
low-level Condition matching (e.g., based on flow state or fields | ||||
in a flow or packet). See also: Interface, I2NSF Provider | ||||
Interface, Client-Facing Interface, NSF-Facing Interface. | ||||
I2NSF Policy: A set of rules that are used to manage and control | I2NSF Management System: I2NSF Consumers operate within the scope of | |||
the changing or maintaining of the state of an NSF instance. | a network management system, which serves as a collection and | |||
distribution point for I2NSF security provisioning. | ||||
I2NSF Policy Rule: A policy rule that is adapted for I2NSF usage. | I2NSF Policy: A set of Policy Rules that are used to manage and | |||
control the changing or maintaining of the state of an instance | ||||
of an NSF. | ||||
I2NSF Policy Rule: A Policy Rule that is adapted for I2NSF usage. | ||||
The I2NSF Policy Rule is assumed to be in ECA form (i.e., an | The I2NSF Policy Rule is assumed to be in ECA form (i.e., an | |||
imperative structure). Other types of programming paradigms | imperative structure). Other types of programming paradigms | |||
(e.g., declarative and functional) are currently out of scope. | (e.g., declarative and functional) are currently out of scope. | |||
An example of an I2NSF Policy Rule is, in pseudo-code: | An example of an I2NSF Policy Rule is, in pseudo-code: | |||
IF <event-clause> is TRUE | IF <event-clause> is TRUE | |||
IF <condition-clause> is TRUE | IF <condition-clause> is TRUE | |||
THEN execute <action-clause> | THEN execute <action-clause> | |||
END-IF | END-IF | |||
END-IF | END-IF | |||
In the above example, the Event, Condition, and Action portions of | In the above example, the Event, Condition, and Action portions | |||
a Policy Rule are all **Boolean Clauses**. | of a Policy Rule are all **Boolean Clauses**. | |||
I2NSF Provider Interface: An Interface dedicated to providing I2NSF | ||||
Services. For example, this could provide Anti-Virus, (D)DoS, or | ||||
IPS Services. See also: Interface, I2NSF Provider Interface, | ||||
Client-Facing Interface, NSF-Facing Interface. | ||||
I2NSF Registry: A registry that contains I2NSF capability | I2NSF Registry: A registry that contains I2NSF capability | |||
information, which can be controlled by the I2NSF Management | information, which can be controlled by the I2NSF Management | |||
System. | System. See also: Registry. | |||
I2NSF Service: A set of functions, provided by an I2NSF Consumer, | ||||
which are used by zero or more I2NSF Producers. Exemplary I2NSF | ||||
Services include Anti-Virus, Authentication, Authorization, | ||||
(D)DoS, Firewall, and IPS Services. See also: Interface, I2NSF | ||||
Provider Interface, Client-Facing Interface, NSF-Facing Interface. | ||||
IDS: Intrusion Detection System (see below). | IDS: Intrusion Detection System (see below). | |||
IPS: Intrusion Protection System (see below). | IPS: Intrusion Protection System (see below). | |||
Information Model: A representation of concepts of interest to an | Information Model: A representation of concepts of interest to an | |||
environment in a form that is independent of data repository, | environment in a form that is independent of data repository, | |||
data definition language, query language, implementation language, | data definition language, query language, implementation language, | |||
and protocol [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | and protocol [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | |||
Interface: A set of operations one object knows it can invoke on, | Interface: A set of operations one object knows it can invoke on, | |||
and expose to, another object. It is a subset of all operations | and expose to, another object. It is a subset of all operations | |||
that a given object implements. The same object may have multiple | that a given object implements. The same object may have multiple | |||
types of interfaces to serve different purposes. An example of | types of interfaces to serve different purposes. An example of | |||
multiple interfaces can be seen by considering the interfaces | multiple interfaces can be seen by considering the interfaces | |||
include a firewall uses; these include: | include a firewall uses; these include: | |||
* multiple interfaces for data packets to traverse through, | * multiple interfaces for data packets to traverse through, | |||
* an interface for a controller to impose policy,or retrieve the | * an interface for a controller to impose policy,or retrieve | |||
results of execution of a policy rule. | the results of execution of a policy rule. | |||
See also: Consumer Interface, I2NSF Interface, Provider Interface | ||||
Intrusion Detection System (IDS): A system that detects network | Intrusion Detection System (IDS): A system that detects network | |||
intrusions via a variety of filters, monitors, and/or probes. An | intrusions via a variety of filters, monitors, and/or probes. An | |||
IDS may be stateful or stateless. | IDS may be stateful or stateless. | |||
Intrusion Protection System (IPS): A system that protects against | Intrusion Protection System (IPS): A system that protects against | |||
network intrusions. An IPS may be stateful or stateless. | network intrusions. An IPS may be stateful or stateless. | |||
Management Plane: In the context of I2NSF, the Management Plane is | ||||
an architectural Component that provides common functions to | ||||
define the behavior of I2NSF Components. The primary use of the | ||||
Management Plane is to transport behavioral commands, and supply | ||||
OAM data, for making decisions that affect behavior. Examples | ||||
include modifying the configuration of an I2NSF Component and | ||||
transporting OAM data. See also: Control Plane, Data Plane. | ||||
Metadata: Data that provides information about other data. | Metadata: Data that provides information about other data. | |||
Examples include IETF network management protocols (e.g. NETCONF, | Examples include IETF network management protocols (e.g. NETCONF, | |||
RESTCONF, IPFix) or IETF routing interfaces (I2RS). The I2NSF | RESTCONF, IPFIX) or IETF routing interfaces (I2RS). The I2NSF | |||
security interface may utilize Metadata to describe and/or | security interface may utilize Metadata to describe and/or | |||
prescribe characteristics and behavior of the YANG data models. | prescribe characteristics and behavior of the YANG data models. | |||
Middlebox: Any intermediary device performing functions other | Middlebox: Any intermediary device performing functions other | |||
than the normal, standard functions of an IP router on the | than the normal, standard functions of an IP router on the | |||
datagram path between a source host and destination host | datagram path between a source host and destination host | |||
[RFC3234]. | [RFC3234]. | |||
Network Security Function (NSF): Software that provides a set of | Network Security Function (NSF): Software that provides a set of | |||
security-related services. Examples include detecting unwanted | security-related services. Examples include detecting unwanted | |||
activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such unwanted | activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such unwanted | |||
activity in order to fulfil service requirements. The NSF can | activity in order to fulfil service requirements. The NSF can | |||
also help in supporting communication stream integrity and | also help in supporting communication stream integrity and | |||
confidentiality. | confidentiality. | |||
NSF-Facing Interface: An Interface dedicated to communication with | ||||
a set of NSFs. This is typically defined per I2NSF administrative | ||||
domain. See also: Interface, Consumer-Facing Interface. | ||||
OAM: Operation, Administrative, and Management. | ||||
OCL (Object Constraint Language): A constraint programming language | OCL (Object Constraint Language): A constraint programming language | |||
that is used to specify constraints (e.g., in UML) (from | that is used to specify constraints (e.g., in UML) (from | |||
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html) | http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg00762.html) | |||
Policy Rule: A set of rules that are used to manage and control | 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 | the changing or maintaining of the state of one or more managed | |||
objects. Often this is shorterned to Rule or Policy (see I2NSF | objects. Often this is shortened to Rule or Policy (see I2NSF | |||
policy rule) [I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model]. | policy rule). (from [I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model]). | |||
Profile: A structured representation of information that | Profile: A structured representation of information that uses a | |||
characterizes the capabilities of an object, typically in a | pre-defined set of capabilities of an object, typically in a | |||
specific context. This may be used to simplify how this object | specific context. Zero or more Capabilities may be changed at | |||
interacts with other objects in its environment. [Editors note: | runtime. This may be used to simplify how this object interacts | |||
John Strassner suggests this is a simplified definition from a | with other objects in its environment. | |||
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: is a logically centralized location containing data of a | Producer: A Producer is a Role that is assigned to an I2NSF | |||
Component that can send information and/or commands to another | ||||
I2NSF Component. See also: Consumer, Role. | ||||
Registry: A logically centralized location containing data of a | ||||
particular type; it may optionally contain metadata, | particular type; it may optionally contain metadata, | |||
relationships, and other aspects of the registered data in order | relationships, and other aspects of the registered data in order | |||
to use those data effectively. An I2NSF registry is used to | to use those data effectively. An I2NSF registry is used to | |||
contain capability information that can be controlled by the | contain capability information that can be controlled by the | |||
controller. | controller. | |||
Registration Interface: An interface dedicated to requesting, | Registration Interface: An interface dedicated to requesting, | |||
receiving, editing, and deleting information in a Registry. | receiving, editing, and deleting information in a Registry. | |||
Service Layer: Software that enables clients to manage security | Role: An abstraction of a Component that models context-specific | |||
policies for their specific flows. This is also called the | views and responsibilities of an object as separate Role objects. | |||
Client-Facing Interface. | Role objects can optionally be attached to, and removed from, the | |||
object that the Role object describes at runtime. This provides | ||||
three important benefits. First, it enables different behavior | ||||
to be supported by the same Component for different contexts. | ||||
Second, it enables the behavior of a Component to be adjusted | ||||
dynamically (i.e., at runtime, in response to changes in context) | ||||
by using one or more Roles to define the behavior desired for | ||||
each context. Third, it decouples the Roles of a Component from | ||||
the Applications use that Component. | ||||
Service Interface: An Interface dedicated to enabling Policy Rules | ||||
to be managed. This is also called the I2NSF Consumer Interface. | ||||
Service Provider Security Controller: TBD (Editorial: Place holder | Service Provider Security Controller: TBD (Editorial: Place holder | |||
for a split between controller and security controller | for a split between controller and security controller | |||
definitions.) | definitions.) | |||
Tenant: A group of users that share common access privileges to | Tenant: A group of users that share common access privileges to | |||
the same software. An I2NSF tenant may be physical or virtual, | the same software. An I2NSF tenant may be physical or virtual, | |||
and may run on a variety of systems or servers. | and may run on a variety of systems or servers. | |||
Vendor Facing Interface: This enables vendors to register their | Vendor-Facing Interface: An Interface dedicated to registering and | |||
NSFs, along with the capabilities of their NSFs, with a logically | vendor-specific NSFs and Capabilities. It is also used to invoke | |||
centralized authority. | vendor-specific functionality. This is also called the NSF-Facing | |||
Interface. | ||||
Virtual NSF: An 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. | ||||
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. | ||||
[Editor's 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 | 3. IANA Considerations | |||
No IANA considerations exist for this document. | No IANA considerations exist for this document. | |||
4. Security Considerations | 4. Security Considerations | |||
This is a terminology document with no security considerations. | This is a terminology document with no security considerations. | |||
5. References | 5. Contributors | |||
5.1. Informative References | The following people contributed to creating this document, and are | |||
listed in alphabetical order: | ||||
Henk Birkholz | ||||
6. References | ||||
6.1. Informative References | ||||
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis] | [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis] | |||
Hares, S., Moskowitz, R., and D. Zhang, "Analysis of | Hares, S., Moskowitz, R., and D. Zhang, "Analysis of | |||
Existing work for I2NSF", draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis-01 | Existing work for I2NSF", draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis-01 | |||
(work in progress), April 2016. | (work in progress), April 2016. | |||
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases] | [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases] | |||
Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Lopez, D., Zarny, M., and C. | Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Lopez, D., Zarny, M., and C. | |||
Jacquenet, "I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases", draft- | Jacquenet, "I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases", draft- | |||
ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00 (work in progress), | ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-01 (work in progress), | |||
February 2016. | July 2016. | |||
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] | [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model] | |||
Bogdanovic, D., Koushik, K., Huang, L., and Blair, D., | Bogdanovic, D., Sreenivasa, K., Huang, L., Blair, D., | |||
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model", | "Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model", | |||
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 (work in progress), | |||
March 2016. | July 2016. | |||
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls] | [I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls] | |||
Baker, F. and P. Hoffman, "On Firewalls in Internet | Baker, F. and P. Hoffman, "On Firewalls in Internet | |||
Security", draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 (work in | Security", draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 (work in | |||
progress), October 2012. | progress), October 2012. | |||
[I-D.strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model] | [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] | |||
Birkholz, H., Lu, J., Cam-Wignet, N., "Secure Automation | ||||
and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Terminology", | ||||
draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-09, March 2016 | ||||
[I-D.ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model] | ||||
Strassner, J., Halpern, J., and J. Coleman, "Generic | Strassner, J., Halpern, J., and J. Coleman, "Generic | |||
Policy Information Model for Simplified Use of Policy | Policy Information Model for Simplified Use of Policy | |||
Abstractions (SUPA)", draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy- | Abstractions (SUPA)", draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy- | |||
info-model-05 (work in progress), April 2016. | info-model-00 (work in progress), June 2016. | |||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | ||||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | ||||
[RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to | [RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to | |||
Accounting Management", RFC 2975, DOI 10.17487/RFC2975, | Accounting Management", RFC 2975, DOI 10.17487/RFC2975, | |||
October 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2975>. | October 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2975>. | |||
[RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and | [RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and | |||
Issues", RFC 3234, DOI 10.17487/RFC3234, February 2002, | Issues", RFC 3234, DOI 10.17487/RFC3234, February 2002, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3234>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3234>. | |||
[RFC3539] Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and | [RFC3539] Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and | |||
Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", RFC 3539, | Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", RFC 3539, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC3539, June 2003, | DOI 10.17487/RFC3539, June 2003, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3539>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3539>. | |||
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", | [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", | |||
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, | FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. | |||
[X.1252] ITU-T, "Baseline identity management terms and | ||||
definitions", Recommendation ITU-T X.1252, April 2010 | ||||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Susan Hares | Susan Hares | |||
Huawei | Huawei | |||
7453 Hickory Hill | 7453 Hickory Hill | |||
Saline, MI 48176 | Saline, MI 48176 | |||
USA | USA | |||
Phone: +1-734-604-0332 | Phone: +1-734-604-0332 | |||
Email: shares@ndzh.com | Email: shares@ndzh.com | |||
John Strassner | John Strassner | |||
Huawei | Huawei Technologies | |||
Santa Clara, CA | Santa Clara, CA | |||
USA | USA | |||
Email: john.sc.strassner@huawei.com | Email: john.sc.strassner@huawei.com | |||
Diego R. Lopez | Diego R. Lopez | |||
Telefonica I+D | Telefonica I+D | |||
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82 | Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82 | |||
Madrid 28006 | Madrid 28006 | |||
Spain | Spain | |||
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com | Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com | |||
Liang Xia (Frank) | Liang Xia (Frank) | |||
Huawei | Huawei | |||
101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District | 101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District | |||
Nanjing , Jiangsu 210012 | Nanjing , Jiangsu 210012 | |||
China | China | |||
Email: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com | Email: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com | |||
End of changes. 66 change blocks. | ||||
133 lines changed or deleted | 251 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |