[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-kumar-i2nsf-controller-northbound-framework) 00 01 02 draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req

I2NSF Working Group                                             R. Kumar
Internet-Draft                                                 A. Lohiya
Intended status: Informational                          Juniper Networks
Expires: May 1, 2017                                               D. Qi
                                                               Bloomberg
                                                                N. Bitar
                                                         S. Palislamovic
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                  L. Xia
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 28, 2016


    Requirements for Client-Facing Interface to Security Controller
            draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-02

Abstract

   This document captures the requirements for the client-facing
   interface to the security controller.  The interfaces are based on
   user constructs understood by a security admin instead of a vendor or
   a device specific mechanism requiring deep knowledge of individual
   products and features.  This document identifies the requirements
   needed to enforce the user-construct oriented policies onto network
   security functions (NSFs) irrespective of how those functions are
   realized.  The function may be physical or virtual in nature and may
   be implemented in networking or dedicated appliances.

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 May 1, 2017.







Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Guiding principles for definition of Client-Facing Interfaces   5
     3.1.  User-construct based modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Basic rules for client interface definition . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Deployment Models for Implementing Security Policies  . .   7
   4.  Functional Requirements for the Client-Facing Interface . . .  10
     4.1.  Requirement for Multi-Tenancy in client interface . . . .  11
     4.2.  Requirement for Authentication and Authorization of
           client interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Requirement for Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) in
           client interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  Requirement to protect client interface from attacks  . .  12
     4.5.  Requirement to protect client interface from
           misconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.6.  Requirement to manage policy lifecycle with diverse needs  13
     4.7.  Requirement to define dynamic policy Endpoint group . . .  14
     4.8.  Requirement to express rich set of policy rules . . . . .  15
     4.9.  Requirement to express rich set of policy actions . . . .  16
     4.10. Requirement to express policy in a generic model  . . . .  18
     4.11. Requirement to detect and correct policy conflicts  . . .  18
     4.12. Requirement for backward compatibility  . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.13. Requirement for Third-Party integration . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.14. Requirement to collect telemetry data . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  Operational Requirements for the Client-Facing Interface  . .  19
     5.1.  API Versioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.2.  API Extensiblity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.3.  APIs and Data Model Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.4.  Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.5.  Affinity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.6.  Test Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

1.  Introduction

   Programming security policies in a network has been a fairly complex
   task that often requires very deep knowledge of vendor specific
   devices.  This has been the biggest challenge for both service
   providers and enterprises, henceforth named as security administrator
   in this document.  The challenge is amplified due to virtualization
   with security appliances in physical and virtual form factor from a
   wide variety of vendors; each vendor have their own proprietary
   interfaces to express security policies on their devices.

   Even if a security administrator deploys a single vendor solution
   with one or more security appliances across its entire network, it is
   still difficult to manage security policies due to complexity of
   security features, and difficulty in mapping business requirement to
   vendor specific configuration.  The security administrator may use
   either vendor provided CLIs or management system with some
   abstraction to help provision and manage security policies.  But, the
   single vendor approach is highly restrictive in today's network for
   the following reasons:

   o  The security administrator cannot rely on a single vendor because
      one vendor may not be able to keep up with their security
      requirements or specific deployment model.

   o  A large organization may have a presence across different sites
      and regions; which means, it may not be possible to deploy same
      solution from single vendor due to regulatory requirement or
      organizational policy.

   o  If and when security administrator migrates from one vendor to
      another, it is almost impossible to migrate security policies from
      one vendor solution to another without complex manual workflows.

   o  Security administrators deploy various security functions in
      virtual or physical forms to attain the flexibility, elasticity,
      performance, and operational efficiency they require.
      Practically, that often requires different sources (vendor, open
      source) to get the best of breed for any such security function.

   o  The security administrator might choose various devices or network
      services (such as routers, switches, firewall devices, and
      overlay-networks) as enforcement points for security policies.



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


      This my be for reason (such as network design simplicity, cost,
      most-effective place, scale and performance).

   In order to ease the deployment of security policies across different
   vendors and devices, the Interface to Network Security Functions
   (I2NSF) working group in the IETF is defining a client-facing
   interface from the security controller to clients [I-D. ietf-i2nsf-
   framework] [I-D. ietf-i2nsf-terminology].  Deployment facilitation
   should be agnostic to the type of device, be it physical or virtual,
   or type of the policy, be it dynamic or static.  Using these
   interfaces, it would become possible to write different kinds of
   application (e.g.  GUI portal, template engine, etc.) to control the
   implementation of security policies on security functional elements,
   though how these applications are implemente are completely out of
   the scope of the I2NSF working group, which is only focused on the
   interfaces.

   This document captures the requirements for the client-facing
   interface that can be easily used by security administrators without
   knowledge of specific security devices or features.  We refer to this
   as "user-construct" based interfaces.  To further clarify, in the
   scope of this document, the "user-construct" here does not mean some
   free-from natural language input or an abstract intent such as "I
   want my traffic secure" or "I don't want DDoS attacks in my network";
   rather the user-construct here means that policies are described
   using client-oriented expressions such as application names,
   application groups, device groups, user groups etc. with a vocabulary
   of verbs (e.g., drop, tap, throttle), prepositions, conjunctions,
   conditionals, adjectives, and nouns instead of using standard
   n-tuples from the packet header.

2.  Conventions Used in this Document

   BSS:  Business Support System

   CLI:  Command Line Interface

   CMDB:  Configuration Management Database

   Controller:  Used interchangeably with Service Provider Security
      Controller or management system throughout this document

   CRUD:  Create, Retrieve, Update, Delete

   FW:  Firewall

   GUI:  Graphical User Interface




Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   IDS:  Intrusion Detection System

   IPS:  Intrusion Protection System

   LDAP:  Lightweight Directory Access Protocol

   NSF:  Network Security Function, defined by
      [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases]

   OSS:  Operation Support System

   RBAC:  Role Based Access Control

   SIEM:  Security Information and Event Management

   URL:  Universal Resource Locator

   vNSF:  Refers to NSF being instantiated on Virtual Machines

3.  Guiding principles for definition of Client-Facing Interfaces

   The "Client-Facing Interface" ensures that a security administrator
   can deploy any device from any vendor and still be able to use a
   consistent interface.  In essence, this interface gives ability to
   security admins to express their security policies independent of how
   security functions are implemented in their deployment.  Henceforth,
   in this document, we use "security policy management interface"
   interchangeably when we refer to the client-facing interface.

3.1.  User-construct based modeling

   Traditionally, security policies have been expressed using
   proprietary interfaces.  These interface are defined by a vendor
   either based on CLI or a GUI system; but more often these interfaces
   are built using vendor specific networking construct such IP address,
   protocol and application constructs with L4-L7 information.  This
   requires security operator to translate their oragnzational business
   objectives into actionable security policies on the device using
   vendor specific configuration.  But, this alone is not sufficient to
   render policies in the network as operator also need to identify the
   device in the network topology where a policy need to be enforced in
   a complex environment with potenial multiple policy enforcement
   points.

   The User-construct based framework defines constructs such as user-
   group, application-group, device-group and location-group.  The
   security admin would use these constructs to express a security
   policy instead of proprietary vendor specific constructs.  The policy



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   defined in such a manner is referred to user-construct based policies
   in this draft.  The idea is to enable security admin to use
   constructs they understand best in expressing security policies;
   which simplify their tasks and help avoiding human errors in complex
   security provisioning.

3.2.  Basic rules for client interface definition

   The basic rules in defining the client-facing interfaces are as
   follows:

   o  Not depending on particular network topology or the actual NSF
      location in the network

   o  Not requiring the exact knowledge of the concrete features and
      capabilities supported in the deployed NSFsa€

   o  Independent of the nature of the function that will apply the
      expressed policies be it stateful firewall,IDP, IDS, Router,
      Switch

   o  Declarative/Descriptive model instead of Imperative/Prescriptive
      model - What security policies need to be enforced (declarative)
      instead of how they would be actually implemented (imperative)

   o  Not depending on any specific vendor implementation or form-factor
      (physical, virtual) of the NSF

   o  Not depending on how a NSF becomes operational - Network
      connectivity and other hosting requirements.

   o  Not depending on NSF control plane implementation (if there is
      one) E.g., cluster of NSFs active as one unified service for scale
      and/ or resilience.

   o  Not depending on specific data plane implementation of NSF i.e.
      Encapsulation, Service function chains.

   Note that the rules stated above only apply to the client-facing
   interface where a user will define a high level policy.  These rules
   do not apply to the lower layers e.g. security controller that
   convert the higher level policies into lower level constructs.  The
   lower layers may still need some intelligence such as topology
   awareness, capability of the NSF and its functions, supported
   encapsulations etc. to convert and apply the policies accurately on
   the NSF devices.





Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


3.3.  Deployment Models for Implementing Security Policies

   Traditionally, medium and larger operators deploy management systems
   to manage their statically-defined security policies.  This approach
   may not be suitable nor sufficient for modern automated and dynamic
   data centers that are largely virtualized and rely on various
   management systems and controllers to dynamically implement security
   policies over any types of resources.

   There are two different deployment models in which the client-facing
   interface referred to in this document could be implemented.  These
   models have no direct impact on the client-facing interface, but
   illustrate the overall security policy and management framework and
   where the various processing functions reside.  These models are:

   a.  Management without an explicit management system for control of
       devices and NSFs.  In this deployment, the security controller
       acts as a NSF policy management system that takes information
       passed over the client security policy interface and translates
       into data on the I2NSF NSF-facing interface.  The I2NSF
       interfaces are implemented by security device/function vendors.
       This would usually be done by having an I2NSF agent embedded in
       the security device or NSF.  This deployment model is shown in
       Figure 1.



























Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


                            RESTful API
                    SUPA or I2NSF Policy Management
                                  ^
                                  |
    Client-facing Interface       |
    (Independent of individual    |
     NSFs, devices,and vendors)|
                                  |
                    ------------------------------
                   |                              |
                   |       Security Controller    |
                   |                              |
                    ------------------------------
                         |                 ^
                         |   I2NSF         |
    NSF Interface        |   NSF-facing    |
    (Specific to NSFs)   |   Interface     |
                     ..............................
                         |                 |
                         v                 |


                   -------------     -------------
                  | I2NSF Agent |   | I2NSF Agent |
                  |-------------|   |-------------|
                  |             |---|             |
                  |     NSF     |   |     NSF     |
        NSFs      |             |   |             |
    (virtual       -------------\   /-------------
       and               |       \ /       |
    physical)            |        X        |
                         |       / \       |
                   -------------/   \-------------
                  | I2NSF Agent |   | I2NSF Agent |
                  |-------------|   |-------------|
                  |             |---|             |
                  |     NSF     |   |     NSF     |
                  |             |   |             |
                   -------------     -------------


              Figure 1: Deployment without Management System

   b.  Management with an explicit management system for control of
       devices and NSFs.  This model is similar to the model above
       except that security controller interacts with a dedicated
       management system which could either proxy I2NSF NSF-facing
       interfaces or could provide a layer where security devices or



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


       NSFs do not support an I2NSF agent to process I2NSF NSF-facing
       interfaces.  This deployment model is shown in Figure 2.


                            RESTful API
                    SUPA or I2NSF Policy Management
                                  ^
                                  |
    Client-facing Interface       |
    (Independent of individual    |
     NSFs,devices,and vendors) |
                                  |
                    ------------------------------
                   |                              |
                   |       Security Controller    |
                   |                              |
                    ------------------------------
                         |                 ^
                         |   I2NSF         |
    NSF Interface        |   NSF-facing    |
    (Specific to NSFs)   |   Interface     |
                     ..............................
                         |                 |
                         v                 |
                    ------------------------------
                   |                              |
                   |      I2NSF Proxy Agent /     |
                   |      Management System       |
                   |                              |
                    ------------------------------
                         |                 ^
                         |  Proprietary    |
                         |  Functional     |
                         |  Interface      |
                     ..............................
                         |                 |
                         v                 |

                   -------------     -------------
                  |             |---|             |
                  |     NSF     |   |     NSF     |
        NSFs      |             |   |             |
    (virtual       -------------\   /-------------
       and               |       \ /       |
    physical)            |        X        |
                         |       / \       |
                   -------------/   \-------------
                  |             |---|             |



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


                  |     NSF     |   |     NSF     |
                  |             |   |             |
                   -------------     -------------


     Figure 2: Deployment with Management System or I2NSF Proxy Agent

   Although the deployment models discussed here don't necessarily
   affect the client security policy interface, they do give an overall
   context for defining a security policy interface based on
   abstraction.

4.  Functional Requirements for the Client-Facing Interface

   As stated in the guiding principles for defining I2NSF client-facing
   interface, the security policies and the client-facing interface
   shall be defined from a user/client perspective and abstracted away
   from the type of NSF, NSF specific implementation, controller
   implementation, NSF topology, NSF interfaces, controller NSF-facing
   interfaces.  Thus, the security policy definition shall be
   declarative, expressing the user construct, and driven by how
   security administrators view security policies from the definition,
   communication and deployment perspective.

   The security controller's implementation is outside the scope of this
   document and the I2NSF working group.

   In order to express and build security policies, high level
   requirements for the client-facing are as follows:

   o  Multi-Tenancy

   o  Authentication and Authorization

   o  Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

   o  Protection from Attacks

   o  Protection from Misconfiguration

   o  Policy Lifecycle Management

   o  Dynamic Policy Endpoint Groups

   o  Policy Rules

   o  Policy Actions




Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   o  Generic Policy Model

   o  Policy Conflict Resolution

   o  Backward Compatibility

   o  Third-Party Integration

   o  Telemetry Data

   The above requirements are by no means a complete list and may not be
   sufficient for all use-cases and all operators, but should be a good
   starting point for a wide variety of use-cases in Service Provider
   and Enterprise networks.

4.1.  Requirement for Multi-Tenancy in client interface

   A security administrator that uses security policies may have
   internal tenants and would like to have a framework wherein each
   tenant manages its own security policies with isolation from other
   tenants.

   An operator may be a cloud service provider with multi-tenant
   deployments, where each tenant is a different customer.  Each tenant
   or customer must be allowed to manage its own security policies.

   It should be noted that tenants may have their own tenants, so a
   recursive relation may exist.  For instance, a tenant in a cloud
   service provider may have multiple departments or organizations that
   need to manage their own security rules.

   Some key concepts are listed below and used throughout the document
   hereafter:

   Policy-Tenant:  An entity that owns and manages the security Policies
      applied on its resources.

   Policy-Administrator:  A user authorized to manage the security
      policies for a Policy-Tenant.

   Policy-User:  A user within a Policy-Tenant who is authorized to
      access certain resources of that tenant according to the
      privileges assigned to it.








Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


4.2.  Requirement for Authentication and Authorization of client
      interface

   Security administrators MUST authenticate to and be authorized by the
   security controller before they are able to issue control commands
   and any policy data exchange commences.

   There must be methods defined for the Policy-Administrator to be
   authenticated and authorized to use the security controller.  There
   are several authentication methods available such as OAuth, XAuth and
   X.509 certificate based.  The authentication scheme between Policy-
   Administrator and security controller may also be mutual instead of
   one-way.  Any specific method may be determined based on
   organizational and deployment needs and outside the scope of I2NSF.
   In addition, there must be a method to authorize the Policy-
   Administrator for performing certain action.  It should be noted
   that, depending on the deployment model, Policy-Administrator
   authentication and authorization to perform actions communicated to
   the controller could be performed as part of a portal or another
   system prior to communication the action to the controller.

4.3.  Requirement for Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) in client
      interface

   Policy-Authorization-Role represents a role assigned to a Policy-User
   that determines whether a user or has read-write access, read-only
   access, or no access for certain resources.  A User can be mapped to
   a Policy-Authorization-Role using an internal or external identity
   provider or mapped statically.

4.4.  Requirement to protect client interface from attacks

   There Must be protections from attacks, malicious or otherwise, from
   clients or a client impersonator.  Potential attacks could come from
   a botnet or a host or hosts infected with virus or some unauthorized
   entity.  It is recommended that security controller use a dedicated
   IP interface for client-facing communications and those
   communications should be carried over an isolated out-of-band
   network.  In addition, it is recommended that traffic between clients
   and security controllers be encrypted.  Furthermore, some
   straightforward traffic/session control mechanisms (i.e., Rate-limit,
   ACL, White/Black list) can be employed on the security controller to
   defend against DDoS flooding attacks.








Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


4.5.  Requirement to protect client interface from misconfiguration

   There Must be protections from mis-configured clients.  System and
   policy validations should be implemented to detect this.  Validation
   may be based on a set of default parameters or custom tuned
   thresholds such as the number of policy changes submitted, number of
   objects requested in a given time interval, etc.

4.6.  Requirement to manage policy lifecycle with diverse needs

   In order to provide more sophisticated security framework, there
   should be a mechanism to express that a policy becomes dynamically
   active/enforced or inactive based on either security administrator's
   manual intervention or an event.

   One example of dynamic policy management is when the security
   administrator pre-configures all the security policies, but the
   policies get activated or deactivated based on dynamic threats.
   Basically, a threat event may activate certain inactive policies, and
   once a new event indicates that the threat has gone away, the
   policies become inactive again.

   There are following ways for dynamically activating policies:

   o The policy may be dynamically activated by the I2NSF client or
   associated management entity, and dynamically communicated over the
   I2NSF client-facing interface to the controller to program I2NSF
   functions using the I2NSF NSF-facing interface

   o The policy may be pulled dynamically by the controller upon
   detecting an event over the I2NSF monitoring interface

   o The policy may be statically pushed to the controller and
   dynamically programmed on the NSFs upon potentially detecting another
   event

   o The policy can be programmed in the NSF, and activated or
   deactivated upon policy attributes, like time or admin enforced.

   The client-facing interface should support the following policy
   attributes for policy enforcement:

   Admin-Enforced:  The policy, once configured, remains active/enforced
      until removed by the security administrator.

   Time-Enforced:  The policy configuration specifies the time profile
      that determines when policy is activated/enforced.  Otherwise, it
      is de-activated.



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   Event-Enforced:  The policy configuration specifies the event profile
      that determines when policy is activated/enforced.  It also
      specifies the duration attribute of that policy once activated
      based on event.  For instance, if the policy is activated upon
      detecting an application flow, the policy could be de-activated
      when the corresponding session is closed or the flow becomes
      inactive for certain time.

   A policy could be a composite policy, that is composed of many rules,
   and subject to updates and modification.  For the policy maintenance,
   enforcement, and auditability purposes, it becomes important to name
   and version the policies.  Thus, the policy definition SHALL support
   policy naming and versioning.  In addition, the i2NSF client-facing
   interface SHALL support the activation, deactivation,
   programmability, and deletion of policies based on name and version.
   In addition, it should support reporting on the state of policies by
   name and version.  For instance, a client may probe the controller
   about the current policies enforced for a tenant and/or a sub-tenant
   (organization) for auditability or verification purposes.

4.7.  Requirement to define dynamic policy Endpoint group

   When the security administrator configures a security policy, it may
   have requirement to apply this policy to certain subsets of the
   network.  The subsets may be identified based on criteria such as
   users, devices, and applications.  We refer to such a subset of the
   network as a "Policy Endpoint Group".

   One of the biggest challenges for a security administrator is how to
   make sure that security policies remain effective while constant
   changes are happening to the "Policy Endpoint Group" for various
   reasons (e.g., organizational, network and application changes).  If
   a policy is created based on static information such as user names,
   application, or network subnets; then every time this static
   information change, policies need to be updated.  For example, if a
   policy is created that allows access to an application only from the
   group of Human Resource users (the HR-users group), then each time
   the HR- users group changes, the policy needs to be updated.

   We call these dynamic Policy Endpoint Groups "Meta-data Driven
   Groups".  The meta-data is a tag associated with endpoint information
   such as users, applications, and devices.  The mapping from meta-data
   to dynamic content could come either from standards-based or
   proprietary tools.  The security controller could use any available
   mechanisms to derive this mapping and to make automatic updates to
   the policy content if the mapping information changes.  The system
   SHOULD allow for multiple, or sets of tags to be applied to a single
   network object.



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   The client-facing policy interface must support endpoint groups for
   user-construct based policy management.  The following meta-data
   driven groups MAY be used for configuring security polices:

   User-Group:  This group identifies a set of users based on a tag or
      on static information.  The tag to identify user is dynamically
      derived from systems such as Active Directory or LDAP.  For
      example, an operator may have different user-groups, such as HR-
      users, Finance-users, Engineering-users, to classify a set of
      users in each department.

   Device-Group:  This group identifies a set of devices based on a tag
      or on static information.  The tag to identify device is
      dynamically derived from systems such as configuration mannagement
      database (CMDB).  For example, a security administrator may want
      to classify all machines running one operating system into one
      group and machines running another operating system into another
      group.

   Application-Group:  This group identifies a set of applications based
      on a tag or on static information.  The tag to identify
      application is dynamically derived from systems such as CMDB.  For
      example, a security administrator may want to classify all
      applications running in the Legal department into one group and
      all applications running under a specific operating system into
      another group.  In some cases, the application can semantically
      associated with a VM or a device.  However, in other cases, the
      application may need to be associated with a set of identifiers
      (e.g., transport numbers, signature in the application packet
      payload) that identify the application in the corresponding
      packets.  The mapping of application names/tags to signatures in
      the associated application packets should be defined and
      communicated to the NSF.  The client-facing Interface shall
      support the communication of this information.

   Location-Group:  This group identifies a set of location tags.  Tag
      may correspond 1:1 to location.  The tag to identify location is
      either statically defined or dynamically derived from systems such
      as CMDB.  For example, a security administrator may want to
      classify all sites/locations in a geographic region as one group.

4.8.  Requirement to express rich set of policy rules

   The security policy rules can be as simple as specifying a match for
   the user or application specified through "Policy Endpoint Group" and
   take one of the "Policy Actions" or more complicated rules that
   specify how two different "Policy Endpoint Groups" interact with each




Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   other.  The client-facing interface must support mechanisms to allow
   the following rule matches.

   Policy Endpoint Groups: The rule must allow a way to match either a
   single or a member of a list of "Policy Endpoint Groups".

   There must be a way to express a match between two "Policy Endpoint
   Groups" so that a policy can be effective for communication between
   two groups.

   Direction:  The rule must allow a way to express whether the security
      administrator wants to match the "Policy Endpoint Group" as the
      source or destination.  The default should be to match both
      directions, if the direction rule is not specified in the policy.

   Threats:  The rule should allow the security administrator to express
      a match for threats that come either in the form of feeds (such as
      botnet feeds, GeoIP feeds, URL feeds, or feeds from a SIEM) or
      speciality security appliances.  Threats could be identified by
      Tags/names in policy rules.  The tag is a label of one or more
      event types that may be detected by a threat detection system.

   The threat could be from malware and this requires a way to match for
   virus signatures or file hashes.

4.9.  Requirement to express rich set of policy actions

   The security administrator must be able to configure a variety of
   actions within a security policy.  Typically, security policy
   specifies a simple action of "deny" or "permit" if a particular
   condition is matched.  Although this may be enough for most of the
   simple policies, the I2NSF client-facing interface must also provide
   a more comprehensive set of actions so that the interface can be used
   effectively across various security functions.

   Policy action MUST be extensible so that additional policy action
   specifications can easily be added.

   The following list of actions SHALL be supported:

   Permit:  This action means continue processing the next rule or allow
      the packet to pass if this is the last rule.  This is often a
      default action.

   Deny:  This action means stop further packet processing and drop the
      packet.





Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   Drop connection:  This action means stop further packet processing,
      drop the packet, and drop connection (for example, by sending a
      TCP reset).

   Log:  This action means create a log entry whenever a rule is
      matched.

   Authenticate connection:  This action means that whenever a new
      connection is established it should be authenticated.

   Quarantine/Redirect:  This action may be relevant for event driven
      policy where certain events would activate a configured policy
      that quarantines or redirects certain packets or flows.  The
      redirect action must specify whether the packet is to be tunneled
      and in that case specify the tunnel or encapsulation method and
      destination identifier.

   Netflow:  This action creates a Netflow record; Need to define
      Netflow server or local file and version of Netflow.

   Count:  This action counts the packets that meet the rule condition.

   Encrypt:  This action encrypts the packets on an identified flow.
      The flow could be over an Ipsec tunnel, or TLS session for
      instance.

   Decrypt:  This action decrypts the packets on an identified flow.
      The flow could be over an Ipsec tunnel, or TLS session for
      instance.

   Throttle:  This action defines shaping a flow or a group of flows
      that match the rule condition to a designated traffic profile.

   Mark:  This action defines traffic that matches the rule condition by
      a designated DSCP value and/or VLAN 802.1p Tag value.

   Instantiate-NSF:  This action instantiates an NSF with a predefined
      profile.  An NSF can be any of the FW, LB, IPS, IDS, honeypot, or
      VPN, etc.

   WAN-Accelerate:  This action optimizes packet delivery using a set of
      predefined packet optimization methods.

   Load-Balance:  This action load balances connections based on
      predefined LB schemes or profiles.






Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   The policy actions should support combination of terminating actions
   and non-terminating actions.  For example, Syslog and then Permit;
   Count and then Redirect.

   Policy actions SHALL support any L2, L3, L4-L7 policy actions.

4.10.  Requirement to express policy in a generic model

   Client-facing interface SHALL provide a generic metadata model that
   defines once and then be used by appropriate model elements any
   times, regardless of where they are located in the class hierarchy,
   as necessary.

   Client-facing interface SHALL provide a generic context model that
   enables the context of an entity, and its surrounding environment, to
   be measured, calculated, and/or inferred.

   Client-facing interface SHALL provide a generic policy model that
   enables context-aware policy rules to be defined to change the
   configuration and monitoring of resources and services as context
   changes.

   Client-facing interface SHALL provide the ability to apply policy or
   multiple sets of policies to any given object.  Policy application
   process SHALL allow for nesting capabilities of given policies or set
   of policies.  For example, an object or any given set of objects
   could have application team applying certain set of policy rules,
   while network team would apply different set of their policy rules.
   Lastly, security team would have an ability to apply its set of
   policy rules, being the last policy to be evaluated against.

4.11.  Requirement to detect and correct policy conflicts

   Client-facing interface SHALL be able to detect policy "conflicts",
   and SHALL specify methods on how to resolve these "conflicts"

   For example: two clients issues conflicting set of security policies
   to be applied to the same Policy Endpoint Group.

4.12.  Requirement for backward compatibility

   It MUST be possible to add new capabilities to client-facing
   interface in a backward compatible fashion.








Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


4.13.  Requirement for Third-Party integration

   The security policies in the security administrator's network may
   require the use of specialty devices such as honeypots, behavioral
   analytics, or SIEM in the network, and may also involve threat feeds,
   virus signatures, and malicious file hashes as part of comprehensive
   security policies.

   The client-facing interface must allow the security administrator to
   configure these threat sources and any other information to provide
   integration and fold this into policy management.

4.14.  Requirement to collect telemetry data

   One of the most important aspect of security is to have visibility
   into the networks.  As threats become more sophisticated, the
   security administrator must be able to gather different types of
   telemetry data from various devices in the network.  The collected
   data could simply be logged or sent to security analysis engines for
   behavioral analysis, policy violations, and for threat detection.

   The client-facing interface MUST allow the security administrator to
   collect various kinds of data from NSFs.  The data source could be
   syslog, flow records, policy violation records, and other available
   data.

   Detailed client-facing interface telemetry data should be available
   between clients and security controllers.  Clients should be able to
   subscribe and receive these telemetry data.

   client should be able to receive notifications when a policy is
   dynamically updated.

5.  Operational Requirements for the Client-Facing Interface

5.1.  API Versioning

   The client-facing interface must support a version number for each
   RESTful API.  This is very important because the client application
   and the controller application may most likely come from different
   vendors.  Even if the vendor is same, it is hard to imagine that two
   different applications would be released in lock step.

   Without API versioning, it is hard to debug and figure out issues if
   application breaks.  Although API versioning does not guarantee that
   applications will always work, it helps in debugging if the problem
   is caused by an API mismatch.




Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


5.2.  API Extensiblity

   Abstraction and standardization of the client-facing interface is of
   tremendous value to security administrators as it gives them the
   flexibility of deploying any vendor's NSF without needing to redefine
   their policies or change the client interface.  However this might
   also look like as an obstacle to innovation.

   If a vendor comes up with new feature or functionality that can't be
   expressed through the currently defined client-facing interface,
   there must be a way to extend existing APIs or to create a new API
   that is relevant for that NSF vendor only.

5.3.  APIs and Data Model Transport

   The APIs for client interface must be derived from the YANG based
   data model.  The YANG data model for client interface must capture
   all the requirements as defined in this document to express a
   security policy.  The interface between a client and controller must
   be reliable to ensure robust policy enforcement.  One such transport
   mechanism is RESTCONF that uses HTTP operations to provide necessary
   CRUD operations for YANG data objects, but any other mechanism can be
   used.

5.4.  Notification

   The client-facing interface must allow the security administrator to
   collect various alarms and events from the NSF in the network.  The
   events and alarms may be either related to security policy
   enforcement or NSF operation.  The events and alarms could also be
   used as a input to the security policy for autonomous handling.

5.5.  Affinity

   The client-facing interface must allow the security administrator to
   pass any additional metadata that a user may want to provide for a
   security policy e.g. certain security policy needs to be applied only
   on linux machine or windows machine or that a security policy must be
   applied on the device with Trusted Platform Module chip.

5.6.  Test Interface

   The client-facing interface must allow the security administrator the
   ability to test the security policies before the policies are
   actually applied e.g. a user may want to verify if a policy creates
   potential conflicts with the existing policies or whether a certain
   policy can be implemented.  The test interface provides such
   capabilities without actually applying the policies.



Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions.  RFC Editor: Please remove
   this section before publication.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Linda Dunbar and Diego
   R.Lopez from IETF I2NSF WG for helpful discussions and advice.

   The authors would also like to thank Kunal Modasiya, Prakash T.
   Sehsadri and Srinivas Nimmagadda from Juniper networks for helpful
   discussions.

8.  Normative References

   [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-02 (work in progress),
              October 2016.

Authors' Addresses

   Rakesh Kumar
   Juniper Networks
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: rkkumar@juniper.net


   Anil Lohiya
   Juniper Networks
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: alohiya@juniper.net











Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Client Interface Requirements         October 2016


   Dave Qi
   Bloomberg
   731 Lexington Avenue
   New York, NY  10022
   US

   Email: DQI@bloomberg.net


   Nabil Bitar
   Nokia
   755 Ravendale Drive
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: nabil.bitar@nokia.com


   Senad Palislamovic
   Nokia
   755 Ravendale Drive
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: senad.palislamovic@nokia.com


   Liang Xia
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com

















Kumar, et al.              Expires May 1, 2017                 [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/