Internet DRAFT - draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-research-methodology
draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-research-methodology
Independent Submission M. McFadden
Internet Draft internet policy advisors ltd
Intended status: Informational June 27, 2019
Expires: December 2019
Methodology for Researching Security Considerations Sections
draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-research-methodology-00.txt
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
McFadden Expires October 27, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
Abstract
RFC3552 provides guidance to authors in crafting RFC text on Security
Considerations. The RFC is more than fifteen years old. With the
threat landscape and security ecosystem significantly changed since
the RFC was published, RFC3552 is a candidate for update. This draft
proposes that, prior to drafting an update to RFC3552, an examination
of recent, published Security Considerations sections be carried out
as a baseline for how to improve RFC3552. It suggests a methodology
for examining Security Considerations sections in published RFCs and
the extraction of both quantitative and qualitative information that
could inform a revision of the older guidance.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Motivation.....................................................3
3.1. Non-goals and scoping.....................................4
3.2. Research Group............................................4
4. Goals for Surveying Existing Security Considerations Sections..4
5. Methodology....................................................5
5.1. Methodology Overview......................................5
5.2. Quantitative Methodology..................................6
5.3. Qualitative Methodology...................................6
5.4. Implications of the Size of n-set.........................7
6. Security Considerations........................................7
7. IANA Considerations............................................8
8. References.....................................................8
8.1. Normative References......................................8
8.2. Informative References....................................8
9. Acknowledgments................................................8
Appendix A. Document History......................................9
1. Introduction
RFC 2223 requires that all RFCs have a Security Consideration
section. The motivation of the section is both to encourage RFC
authors to consider security in protocol design and to inform readers
of relevant security issues. RFC 3552 was published in July of 2003
to give guidance to RFC authors on how to write a good Security
Considerations section. It is structured in three parts: a tutorial
and definitional section, then a series of guidelines, and finally a
series of examples.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
It is possible to observe that the Internet security landscape has
changed significantly since the publication of RFC 3552. Rather than
an immediate attempt to draft and discuss a revision to the older
RFC, it may be prudent to learn from the experience of nearly fifteen
years of documents published since RFC 3552 was approved for
publication.
It is possible that an examination of published Security
Considerations sections of existing documents could give both
quantitative and qualitative insight on how to proceed with a newer
version of the Security Considerations guidelines. The motivation is
to inform any discussion of a revision with quantitative and
qualitative data gleaned from years of published RFCs.
This document proposes a methodology for such research.
This scope of this proposal is for the research itself. Discussion of
relevant issues, document organization and revised content for a
revision of RFC 3552 is out of scope. Instead, the motivation is to
guide a piece of research that would later form part of the
foundation for a discussion of a revision to RFC 3552.
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 RFC 2119 [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 significance described in RFC 2119.
3. Motivation
Since 1998, all RFCs have been required to have a Security
Considerations section. The authors of RFC 3552 observed that
"historically, such sections have been relatively weak." The
motivation for RFC 3552 was, in part, to improve the quality of
Security Considerations sections.
Today the Internet threat model, the landscape of attacks, and our
understanding of how to craft protocols that are more robust and
resilient has changed significantly. Experience in both protocol
design and implementation has greatly improved our understanding of
the security implications of choices made during protocol design.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
It is possible that a revision of RFC 3552, reflecting the changes to
the Internet and our understanding of the evolved security landscape
and threat model, is appropriate.
If a revision were to be contemplated, it would be useful to learn
from the body of experience of crafting Security Considerations
sections in recent years. That body of experience could inform the
discussion of what makes up a good Security Considerations section by
collecting real-world data from existing RFCs. It would be possible
to have a survey of the existing Security Considerations sections in
published RFCs. The data collected from that survey could provide one
source of information for discussion of how to improve upon RFC 3552
in the current environment.
For such a survey to be successful, an outline of some basic goals
and a methodology would be required. This document provides those
goals and methodology. The intent is that individuals or
organizations could then carry out such a survey, publish te results
and use that data to inform any discussion of a potential 3552bis.
3.1. Non-goals and scoping
This document specifically does not make suggestions for changes to
RFC 3552. It also does not identify changes to the Internet threat
model or the general security landscape that has changed since that
RFC has been published.
The scope of this document is to provide a basic set of goals for
research on existing Security Considerations sections and establish a
methodology for conducting that research.
3.2. Research Group
This original research work was inspired by the themes in the
proposed Stopping Malware and Researching Threats (smart) research
group in the IRTF to survey current and historic IETF material to
discover existing deliberations on attack defense. This work could
also be conducted independently and submitted as an Independent
Submission in the IETF.
4. Goals for Surveying Existing Security Considerations Sections
A cursory examination of recent years' Security Considerations
sections shows that authors publish a wide variety of these sections.
This is natural since the RFC series has a diverse set of purposes
and readership.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
However, even a cursory examination shows that published Security
Considerations sections have some clear characteristics. Identifying
useful characteristics and then surveying the existing base of
published RFCs may provide a useful base of information for a later
discussion of revising RFC 3552.
The goal of surveying existing Security Considerations sections is to
provide quantitative and qualitative data, from existing, published
RFCs, that can be used to inform a discussion of revising RFC 3552.
5. Methodology
5.1. Methodology Overview
The survey of existing Security Considerations sections would examine
a subset of RFCs published since the publication of RFC 3552. RFCs
obsoleted by later publications, RFCs that are reports from IAB
activities and IETF, IRTF, and IESG administrative RFC are omitted
from consideration.
Documents other than RFCs are also omitted: the RFC Series is, as a
permanent repository of protocol development and guidance to
implementors, the series of documents most likely to be read for
security considerations.
The survey should select a specific timeframe, across which, all RFCs
published in that period are examined.
The examination proceeds in two parts: a quantitative examination of
the Security Considerations sections and then a qualitative
examination.
As an example, the quantitative examination might survey and collect
data on the source of the RFC (e.g. Security Area, Routing Area,
Transport Area), whether the RFC extends the Security Considerations
section of a previously published document, the wordcount of the
section, and the existence of specific keywords.
The qualitative analysis might group Security Considerations sections
by particular characteristics - those characteristics being
discovered, in part, during an initial examination of the published
documents.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
5.2. Quantitative Methodology
Once the set of RFCs (where the size of the set is said to be n-set)
to be considered is established, the quantitative analysis proceeds
as follows for each item in the set:
o recording the date of publication
o recording the source of the original draft
o recording the category of the RFC (e.g. Informational, etc.)
o recording the size of the Security Considerations section in words
and paragraphs
o recording whether or not the section updates or extends the
Security Considerations section of a previously published document
o record whether or not examples exist in the Security
Considerations section
o record whether or not example code appears in the Security
Considerations section
o extracting the text and creating a new text removing the 100 most
common English words
o against the new text created in the step above, perform text
analytics - for instance, create a count of the number of
occurrences of expected keywords
The result would be a series of metrics for n-set that establish
certain characteristics of the Security Considerations sections of
published RFCs. Once the quantitative data was gathered, further
analysis of the data could be conducted (for instance, finding
relationships between certain features of the RFCs).
5.3. Qualitative Methodology
The documents could also be assigned qualitative characteristics as a
result of the survey. For instance, based on characteristics of the
document, the Security Considerations could be characterized as
"extensive" or "limited."
It is also clear that analysis of the Security Considerations could
lead to other groupings. For instance, an analysis of recent RFCs
shows that those documents which focus on cipher suites have quite
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
different security considerations sections compared to those that
extend and existing protocol. Identification of those
characteristics might be possible during an initial survey. In
another case, those characteristics might emerge during the survey
execution.
5.4. Implications of the Size of n-set
Since part of the execution of the survey has to be done via human
intervention, the size of n-set has an effect on whether or not
volunteers or organizations take on the effort. While it would be
helpful to have as large a sample size as possible for the collection
of data to support the analysis. It may be necessary to limit the
size of n-set in practice.
One way to do this is to limit the range of dates for the RFCs being
analyzed. A cursory, initial examination of Security Considerations
sections seems to indicate that, in recent years, a clear set of
prototypical security considerations sections has emerged and that
there are distinct type of sections. By limiting the RFCs for the set
of considered document to a specific, recent timeframe the goal is to
focus the analysis on recent practice in crafting Security
Considerations sections and moving them through the document approval
process.
Another approach to solving the potential problem of the size of n-
set is to incorporate a sampling regime for the selection of RFCs to
be examined. This would be a meaningful approach in the event where
the timeframe was extended, but where it was still desirable to
reduce the size of n-set.
A third approach is to attempt to cluster the sample sets based on
particular metrics (e.g. source working group, date, or the existence
of certain keywords. Clustering might be a mechanism where
correlations might be found to exist between certain characteristics
of the RFCs and the quality of the security consideration section.
This proposal suggests to use the timeframe limitation but not
incorporate sampling.
6. Security Considerations
This document describes goals and a methodology for surveying the
existing body of Security Considerations in published RFCs. It does
not create, extend or modify any protocols. Its intent is to provide
a foundation for a data-driven discussion of the guidelines for
writing a Security Considerations section in an RFC.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
7. IANA Considerations
Upon publication, this document has no required actions for IANA.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
To Do.
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and
Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
8.2. Informative References
To Do.
9. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
Appendix A. Document History
[[ To be removed from the final document ]]
-0
Initial Internet Draft
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC3552 Research Methodology June 2019
Authors' Addresses
Mark McFadden
Internet policy advisors ltd
Madison Wisconsin US
Email: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
McFadden Expires December 27, 2019 [Page 10]
