[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/