<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC5209 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5209.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3444 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3444.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology">
<!ENTITY I-D.handt-sacm-alternate-architecture SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.handt-sacm-alternate-architecture.xml">

]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-04" ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the 
         full title is longer than 39 characters P-->

    <title abbrev="Abbreviated Title">Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements</title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

 
    <author fullname="Nancy Cam-Winget" initials="N." surname="Cam-Winget">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>3550 Cisco Way</street>
	  <city>San Jose</city>
	  <country>US</country>
	  <code>95134</code>
	  <region>CA</region>

          <!-- Reorder-->
        </postal>

        <email>ncamwing@cisco.com</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>


    <date month="June" year="2014"/>


    <area>General</area>

    <workgroup>SACM</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
         IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
         which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>template</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines the scope and set of requirements for the Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring working group.
      The requirements and scope are based on the agreed upon use cases.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t> Today's challenges of evolving threats and improved analytics to address such threats highlight a need to automate the securing of both information and the systems that store, process and transmit the information. SACM's charter focuses on addressing some of these challenges in a narrower scope by bounding the task to address use cases that pertain to the posture assessment of endpoints. </t>

      <t> This document focuses on describing the requirements for facilitating the exchange of posture assessment information, in particular, for the use cases as exemplified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases"/>.Also, this document uses terminology defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology"/>.</t>

    </section>
      
    <section anchor="reqmts" title="Requirements">
       <t> This document defines requirements based on the SACM use cases defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases"/>. 
       This section describes the requirements used by SACM to assess and compare candidate information models
       and protocols to suit the architecture.  These requirements express characteristics or features that a candidate
       protocol or data model must be capable of offering so as to ensure security and interoperability.</t>

       

       <section anchor="general" title="General SACM requirements">
	 <t>The use cases defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases"/> apply to many deployment scenarios. To ensure interoperability, scalability and flexibility in any of these deployments, the following requirements are defined for all use cases:</t>
	 <t><list hangIndent="1" style="hanging">
         <t hangText="G-001">Extensibility: the data models, protocols and transports defined by SACM must be extensible to allow support for non-standard and future extensions. The transport protocol must support easily adding
    new operations while maintaining backwards compatibility.  The
    query language must allow general inquiries as well as expression
    of specific paths to follow; retrieval of specific information
    based on an event, as well as on a continuous basis; and the
    ability to retrieve specific pieces of information, specific
    classes of information, and/or the entirety of available
    information.  The information model must accommodate the addition
    of new data types and/or schemas in a backwards compatible fashion.</t>

<t hangText="G-002">Interoperability: The data models, protocols and transports must be specified with enough details and state machine to ensure interoperability.</t>

<t hangText="G-003">Scalability: The data models, protocols and transports must be scalable. SACM must support a broad set of deployment scenarios. As such, it is possible that the size or posture assessment information can vary from a single assessment that is small in (record or datagram) size to a very large datagram or a very large set of assessments and must be addressed by the SACM specifications defined. </t>

	   <t hangText="G-004">
           Agility: The agility requirement is to ensure that the data model, protocols, transports and its implementations are suitable to fit in different deployment models and scenarios. Considerations for the lightweight implementations of data models and transports is required.  Use cases, especially in the vulnerability assessment and threat defense applications require time criticality in both obtaining the information as well as consuming (e.g. parsing) the data.
           </t>
       
	   <t hangText="G-005"> Transport variability: Different transports must be supported to address different deployment and time constraints.  Supporting transports at the Layer 2, Layer 3 and higher application layers.</t>
       
	   <t hangText="G-006"> Extensibility: a method for expressing both standard and non-standard
           (implementer-specific) data attributes while avoiding collisions
           should be defined. For interoperability and scope boundary, an explicit set of data attributes as mandatory to implement should be defined and focused on Posture Assessment should be described to allow for interoprability too.</t>
       
	   <t hangText="G-007"> Access Control: To address security and privacy considerations, the data model, protocols and transport must consider authorization based on roles to only allow authorized requestors and publishers to access the information being requested or published.</t>
	 </list> </t>
       </section>
       
       <section anchor="per_usecase" title="Requirements based on Use Cases">
	 <t>This section describes the requirements that may apply to information models, data models, protocols or transports as identified by the use cases in <xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases"/> and referenced by the section numbers from that draft. </t>
	  <t><list hangIndent="1" style="hanging">
          <t hangText="REQ-001">Attribute Dictionary: Use Cases in the whole of Section 2 describe the need for an Attribute Dictionary. With SACM's scope focused on Posture Assessment, the attribute collection and aggregation must have a well understood set of attributes inclusive of their meaning or usage intent.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-002">Information Model: Use Case 2.1.1 describes the need for an Information Model to drive content definition. As SACM endeavors to reuse already existing standards which may have their own data models defined by instantiating an information model, the data models can be mapped to SACM's information model.  See <xref target="RFC3444"/> for a description and distinctions between an information and data model.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-003">Data Model to Protocol mapping: Use Case 2.1.1 describes the need to instantiate a data model that can map to the SACM protocols for posture content operations such as publication, query, change detection and asynchronous notifications.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-004">Endpoint Discovery: Use Case 2.1.2 describes the need to discover endpoints and their composition.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-005">Attribute based query: Use Case 2.1.2 describes the need for the data model to support a query operation based on a set of attributes to facilitate collection of information such as posture assessment, inventory (of endpoints or endpoint components) and configuration checklist. .</t>

<t hangText="REQ-006">Information based query with filtering: Use Case 2.1.3 describes the need for the data model to support the means for the information to be collected through a query mechanism. Furthermore, the query operation requires filtering capabilities to allow for only a subset of information to be retrieved. The query operation may be a synchronous request or asynchronous request.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-007">Asynchronous publication, updates or change modifications with filtering: Use Cases 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describe the need for the data model to support the means for the information to be published asynchronously. Similarly, the data model must support the means for a requestor to obtain updates or change modifications asynchronously. Like the query operation, these update notifications can be set up with a filter to allow for only a subset of posture assessment information to be obtained.</t>

<t hangText="REQ-008">Data model scalability: Use Cases 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describes the need for the data model to support scalability. For example, the query operation may result in a very large set of attributes as well as a large set of targets.</t>

 <t hangText="REQ-009">Separation of Collection Request and Collection Action: the data model must distinguish the means to request for a data item to include enough information to properly identify the item to collect but the request could be separate and distinct from the actual method or process used to fulfill the request.</t>
	  </list></t>
      
     
    </section>
  </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Barbara Fraser, Jim Bieda and Adam Montville for reviewing and contributing to this draft.</t>


    </section>

    <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This memo includes no request to IANA.</t>

          </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
	<t>This document defines the requirements for SACM.  As such, it is expected that several data models, protocols and transports may be defined or reused from already existing standards.  This section will highlight security considerations that may apply to SACM based on the architecture and standards applied in SACM.</t>
	
    </section>
  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
     directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
     with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
     filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->

      &RFC2119;
      &I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases;
      &I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology;
     
    </references>
     
    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->

      &RFC5209;
      &RFC3444;
     
    </references>



    <!-- Change Log

v00 2013-010-11  NCW   Initial version
v02 2014-002-02  NCW   Changed the structure of the document to include general requirements vs. those driven by use cases based on feedback by the WG and the spreadsheet discussed in the Dec 2-13 call.  Removed Security Requirements section they may be addressed in the Security Consideration section.
v03 2014-012-02  NCW   Removed Terminology section.  Updated proposed architecture and requirements per feedback on Feb 4 call; added more text around the "Evaluator Service", clarified G-005 and REQ-006 and removed references to SACM WG.
v04 2014-027-05  NCW   Removed Architecture section, incorporated some updates from Lisa Lorenzin's 5/13/14 email.
     -->
  </back>
</rfc>
