Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-05

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <> Tue, 05 November 2019 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BC3120815; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:03:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXbTCfzlfNoF; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6304F120810; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 6so16004386wmf.0; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 01:03:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8kxDwvq/2GHFAPvuDfTHz5p85/hWbVw3F3kXsY9u4Hc=; b=verP2jWpGMwpgXpE127q+psRhZPnf8+gCzRAYWBTW9r+6wmliWpev7wetWhjsEg3ne am3R7LGlDwzO9IY7HOZfY0BlGdUWZuT9bGh2gnumQbxzihhtYnlnpvZQi+L1WzWIqWsr y5nfADYGz0e8KcdXgCm3zd/9fEHB/hznw/nYvWoEyZxHNhqhmzgQXSKbWebJRlluIOGC FJUi52LVLAaDW+1sh54eCW24oU9/z+LKUwoDbbyIVkVh2K5d9ZZbdMFf3NlqJ2knoqnf n0tmId8ASqGwwnmhPrklX5BKsqXf7vnYLI4AxFEtyvqkTdOlQTzGsZn006z9NQjzUnVZ CV5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8kxDwvq/2GHFAPvuDfTHz5p85/hWbVw3F3kXsY9u4Hc=; b=MTRTK/PCdpnKvUXJzNb8EOqO1JJrTELuYVE5Bq7em3gpYXgBvMVJ9jYPb25yB9LdD2 f4jOoCzdpSz3WtPtrLD/WWviFHaQhPxtSlSt5nSyf1L7c4q0bXB6LpiI2aMnYrhVQm0k oEj71pRmU3zbsO/9UTuX523xHjvt3H4Cetri5BW68gT0MTx6zl026IoQ/h1lZp1Yc7av p5MDyfna9/3U7TpYP7NVTWzSAnJDVRx8YzbJIqtitAATF2cXfv2+9IndErIUDKc+/A+q Et1qedXFW29Oj1Q4jaJC8BaI2r+PRb42grUSJ480rpTUnkAZAbIRKHALi/N4fqb6ey4s kuaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5Bbf6I7NOVLKFJTXuTWWYivyQqcGLNRLCyQZBMhooP9u+v+nW vWtKWYoKZstjgXnbkBxT5ubKe3Ij0kR3M05TCmA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyy4WliDN7TC6MzQ4KCUce8AKsOIvWdGZ/7pjdLK4+nCG0bUnYaiHDzgt4tFmqWDBWiiOJIRi1CzhXapYlfQpY=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6a1a:: with SMTP id f26mr3207955wmc.19.1572944617943; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 01:03:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:03:03 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Jan Lindblad <>
Cc: "" <>, YANG Doctors <>,, IETF Discussion <>,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000003568f2059695b50c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 09:03:48 -0000

Hi Jan,
I have revised the Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model draft according to
your guideline as follows:

I attach a revision letter to explain how I revised this draft according to
your comments.

If you have further comments, please let me know.


Best Regards,

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:21 PM Jan Lindblad <> wrote:

> Paul, I2NSF team,
> Thanks for your volunteering to improve our Consumer-Facing Interface YANG
> Module.
> Could you propose a way to redesign ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy.yang to befit
> Certainly. Find my proposed sketch for the module structure attached.
> I think it is important for the adoption of this module that it is
> reasonably easy to implement it on top of existing NETCONF/RESTCONF/YANG
> servers. They all implement the NACM management access control mechanism
> today, so the ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy module should build on that. It's
> therefore important to leverage the existing NACM mechanisms and concepts
> for groups, users, permissions.
> It would be technically possible to set up all the management access
> control rules needed to implement the I2NSF ideas by only creating rules in
> NACM. The NACM rules are massively more complex than the simple owner leaf
> proposed in your YANG module, however. From a usability perspective I think
> it makes good sense to keep the abstraction in ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy and
> let the module implementor make sure this high level authorization view is
> translated into NACM specifics.
> In order to make this feasible, I changed the owner string leaf into a
> leafref pointer to NACM groups, and removed the module's separate
> identities for permissions. Let's adopt the NACM counterparts instead. The
> structure of the rules was very flat, i.e. the domains, tenants, policies
> and rules were mostly side by side, not reflecting their logical hierarchy
> in the YANG. This would make the number of NACM rules to control access to
> each individual item very high. By arranging them in a tree structure, I
> believe the number of NACM rules can be kept to a minimum. NACM rules may
> have a high impact on server performance, so it's important to not have
> excessive amounts of them.
> I created a hierarchy with domains on top, each domain containing zero or
> more tenants, each with zero or more policies that in turn consist of zero
> or more rules. At each level it is possible to list owners in the form of
> NACM groups. The module implementor would then have to translate these
> owner references to actual NACM rules.
> Here is an example sketch configuration and the resulting NACM rules (in
> CLI style syntax for readability):
> i2nsf-cfi domains domain
>  owners [ ]
>  tenants tenant dev
>   policies policy team-black
>    owners [ ]
>    rules rule 2
>    !
>    rules rule allow-malware-sites
>     owners [ ]
> This is supposed to mean that members of the group
> have full ownership of everything in the domain. Within this
> domain, there is a tenant called dev, with a policy called team-black. That
> policy is owned by This means this policy may be
> updated by members in and Within
> the policy there are two rules ("2" and "allow-malware-sites"). The
> "allow-malware-sites" rule has the group listed as
> owner; this is superfluous. In this example, the rules are otherwise empty.
> In order for existing NC/RC/YANG servers to enforce the above, the
> ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy module implementation would need to translate the
> intent above to NACM rules like the ones below. In this example, the
> implementation created a rule to allow members of the dev and eng-it groups
> within the org to see the domain and everything
> within it. Next there is a rule to allow members of the dev
> group to update the policy named team-black within the dev tenant. Finally,
> there is a rule to allow the eng-it group members to update anything within
> the domain. The default nacm policy per statement in the YANG
> is to deny anyone else to see anything within the i2nsf domain.
> nacm rule-list
>  group [ ]
>  rule read-all
>   path              /i2nsf-cfi/domains/domain[name='']
>   access-operations read
>   action            permit
>  !
> !
> nacm rule-list
>  group [ ]
>  rule 1
>   path   /i2nsf-cfi/domains/domain[name='
> ']/tenants/tenant[name='dev']/policies/policy[name='team-black']
>   action permit
>  !
> !
> nacm rule-list
>  group [ ]
>  rule 1
>   path   /i2nsf-cfi/domains/domain[name='']
>   action permit
>  !
> !
> NACM also contains a mapping from user names to groups. Is this in line
> with your expectations? Do we need additional infrastructure to control
> this mapping?
> nacm groups group
>  user-name [ jan vasilij ]
> !
> nacm groups group
>  user-name [ chris victor ]
> !
> nacm groups group
>  user-name [ clara sakura ]
> !
> What do you think about this approach to the management access control?
> I'm not sure I got the relations between domains, tenants, policies and
> rules as you want them. Are all these levels needed? Do you believe this is
> this is a workable approach to your vision?
> Please let me know if you would like me to take any further steps with
> this sketch. I should mention that I also have plenty of other comments on
> your updated module, but I want to get the access control approach resolved
> before looking at anything else.
> I am not aware of any particular party interested to implement our data
> model.
> Then it is all the more important that the solution can be implemented on
> top of the existing servers out there without modifying them.
> Best Regards,
> /jan

Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Personal Homepage: