Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Your examples match my understanding of the intent of the draft.

The assumption is that
if there is mutual dependence, the client will use all-or-none
if there is an ordering constraint, the client will use until-error
if there is no ordering coupling, but just a bundling for convenience, 
the client can use all storing errors.

The text does not specify what consistency checks are applied in cases 2 
and 3.  Classic network management would lead one to expect full 
consistency checks.  Modeling as individual api operations (and some 
people's view of cli) would lead to no consistency checks.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/29/15 11:13 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Some of the discussions in the working group earlier (not formally captured
>> in the archtiecture, and not clarified in discussion) were of the form
>> "If the operator wants to shoot himself in the foot, I2RS' job is to let
>> him."
>> If that is the model that the working group is assuming, then I am not sure
>> that consistency / validity enforcement is desired.
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.  I believe at least some
>> people saw the omission of such checks as a path to improvd transaction
>> rates.
>>
>> My only concern is to avoid accidentally chaning a working group agreement.
>>
>
>
> IMO it is extremely difficult to implement a datastore that is allowed
> to have schema-invalid contents.  It is one thing to accept the good
> edits and reject the bad edits.  It is quite another to force the server
> to accept bad edits.
>
> I don't think the text is very clear at all.
> Let's say I have an edit list with 5 edits.
> Edits 1, 3, and 5 are good and edits 2 and 4 are bad:
>
> 1) all-or-none: (NETCONF: rollback-on-error)
>       - no changes to datastore;
>       - errors logged for #2 and #4 (or maybe just #2)
>
> 2) until-error: (NETCONF stop-on-error)
>       - edit #1 applied to datastore;
>       - error logged for #2
>
> 3) all storing errors: (NETCONF continue-on-error)
>      - edits #1 and #3 and #5 applied
>      - errors logged for #2 and #4
>
> This is my understanding of the 3 options.
>
>
>
>> yours,
>> Joel
>
> Andy
>
>>
>> On 5/29/15 9:59 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy:
>>>
>>> See one question below.  If alter to not store invalid values in the
>>> datastore - is my addition to Jeff's 2.4 addition acceptable?
>>>
>>> Sue
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:42 PM
>>> To: Susan Hares
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Jeff Haas; [e-mail]; Juergen Schoenwaelder;
>>> Alia Atlas; Jeffrey Haas; Joel M. Halpern
>>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On all actions working or not – you should look at section 7.9 of the
>>>>> architecture.  It allows “perform all or none”, “perform until error”,
>>>>> and
>>>>> “perform all storing errors.”    I will propose an addition to section
>>>>> 2.4
>>>>> to Jeff’s document:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> OK -- I remember these options now.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It should be clear in the document that stopping on error or recording
>>>> errors does not mean the agent will leave the datastore in an invalid
>>>>> state.  Most YANG validation errors can be pruned from the datastore.
>>>> This may or may not leave the datastore in an operationally useful state.
>>>> The must/min-elements/unique statements can cause validation errors on
>>>> nodes outside the edit list.
>>>>
>>>> NETCONF does not allow validation errors in the running datastore.
>>>> I2RS should not allow validation errors in the ephemeral data.
>>>
>>>
>>> [sue]:  On case: or if perform and until error / or perform and record
>>> error - you are assuming these are a validation error?
>>> You are commending I2RS should not store values with invalid data.   Are
>>> you against logging the validation errors?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.4 ) Transaction to ephemeral state:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ephemeral state should support a multiple parts of a operation
>>>> occurring in a single message, but it does not require multi-message
>>>> atomicity and rollback. Three types of error handling should be
>>>> supported:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Perform all or none:   This traditional SNMP semantic indicates that
>>>>
>>>>         other I2RS agent will keep enough state when handling a single
>>>>
>>>>         message to roll back the operations within that message.  Either
>>>>
>>>>         all the operations will succeed, or none of them will be applied
>>>>
>>>>         and an error message will report the single failure which caused
>>>>
>>>>         them not to be applied.  This is useful when there are, for
>>>>
>>>>         example, mutual dependencies across operations in the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Perform until error:   In this case, the operations in the message
>>>>
>>>>         are applied in the specified order.  When an error occurs, no
>>>>
>>>>         further operations are applied, and an error is returned
>>>>
>>>>         indicating the failure.  This is useful if there are
>>>> dependencies
>>>>
>>>>         among the operations and they can be topologically sorted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Perform all storing errors:   In this case, the I2RS Agent will
>>>>
>>>>         attempt to perform all the operations in the message, and will
>>>>
>>>>         return error indications for each one that fails.  This is
>>>> useful
>>>>
>>>>         when there is no dependency across the operation, or where the
>>>>
>>>>         client would prefer to sort out the effect of errors on its own.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      In the interest of robustness and clarity of protocol state, the
>>>>
>>>>      protocol will include an explicit reply to modification or write
>>>>
>>>>      operations even when they fully succeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will this cover the architecture document 7.9 transactions impact on
>>>> ephemeral state?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sue Hares
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:44 PM
>>>> To: 'Andy Bierman'
>>>> Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; 'Joel M. Halpern'; 'Jeffrey Haas';
>>>> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Alia Atlas'
>>>> Subject: RE: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I missed the second part of the email
>>>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg02532.html) in
>>>> my earlier message:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> . " The last paragraph sounds like some nodes will be accepted and
>>>>> others  rejected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If any nodes are rejected, the entire edit should be rejected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session.   NETCONF within a
>>>> commit.  Section 6.2 of the I2RS architecture document describes state
>>>> storage for I2RS, and it does not have the atomic requirement for the
>>>> protocol.  Instead section 3.3 of the I2RS architecture document calls
>>>> for this to be model driver.  Let me provide examples from the 2 major
>>>> I2RS protocol independent models:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The I2RS RIB yang model (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-00)  proposes
>>>> that each route will be associated with the following: route
>>>> preference, active, installed.  Notifications for route change will be
>>>> given if route is installed, active, and a reason given, or if the
>>>> route commit fails. Some routes may be accepted, and some routes rejected
>>>> for installation to the
>>>> RIB.   The concept is the client will be able to detect when a route is
>>>> rejected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-00 states in section 3.5
>>>> discusses the challenge that topology models are not: configuration
>>>> data only or operational data only – but a combination of both in
>>>> ephemeral state.
>>>> Draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-00 suggests an ephemeral topology
>>>> model which is operational (read-only) that contains data from: a)
>>>> only read from operational units, b) a configured topology, and c)
>>>> combination topology (operational state and configured).  (A second
>>>> alternative is to just have “a” and “b”, but for now let’s focus on a,
>>>> b, and c).  The “C” combination topology may be generated based on
>>>> priority of configured topology versus operational data.  The inclusion
>>>> in “c” may also be validated (E.g.
>>>> interface up, or L3 link runs on tunnel over interface which is up)).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These two model documents show why atomic state may be on a very small
>>>> section of the whole change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don’t think the rule-list should store the client priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It should be in the 'group' list, or outside NACM completely."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your alternate proposal are:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1)            Moving i2rs-priority to group list
>>>>
>>>> 2)            Adding a i2rs-client [unspecified location]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This mail deals with #1.  If you have more details on proposal #2,
>>>> please suggest them on the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> list i2rs-client {
>>>>
>>>>         key name;
>>>>
>>>>         leaf name {
>>>>
>>>>            description "The client name";
>>>>
>>>>            type i2rs:client-name;
>>>>
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>         leaf priority {
>>>>
>>>>           description "The priority value assigned to this client.";
>>>>
>>>>           type i2rs:client-priority;
>>>>
>>>>        }
>>>>
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Question: Is this i2rs-list to be included in the group list for NACM
>>>> (as listed below from RFC6536) as a leaf list below?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          container groups {
>>>>
>>>>            description
>>>>
>>>>              "NETCONF Access Control Groups.";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            list group {
>>>>
>>>>             key name;
>>>>
>>>>              description
>>>>
>>>>                "One NACM Group Entry.  This list will only contain
>>>>
>>>>                 configured entries, not any entries learned from
>>>>
>>>>                 any transport protocols.";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>              leaf name {
>>>>
>>>>                type group-name-type;
>>>>
>>>>                description
>>>>
>>>>                  "Group name associated with this entry.";
>>>>
>>>>              }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>              leaf-list user-name {
>>>>
>>>>                type user-name-type;
>>>>
>>>>                description
>>>>
>>>>                  "Each entry identifies the username of
>>>>
>>>>                   a member of the group associated with
>>>>
>>>>                   this entry.";
>>>>
>>>>              }
>>>>
>>>>             # add leaf-list I2rs-client here
>>>>
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>>          }
>>>>
>>>> Your message:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg02523.html
>>>>
>>>> States:  "I think I2RS interaction with NACM needs to be clearly defined.
>>>> NACM implementations do not currently check write requests
>>>>
>>>> on config=false data. It is possible some edits to NACM are needed
>>>> even if no objects are added to the data structure."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a proposal for changing the text in section 5.2 of
>>>> draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs-00?
>>>>
>>>> Is it sufficient to state:   “NACM implementations for I2RS will need to
>>>> check write request on config=false, ephemeral = true. “
>>>>
>>>> before the paragraph:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Ephemeral configuration state nodes that are created or altered by
>>>> users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes
>>>> annotated with metadata.  Additionally, during commit processing, if
>>>> nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the
>>>> priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that
>>>> node, the commit SHALL fail. An appropriate error should be returned
>>>>
>>>>      to the user stating the nodes where the user had insufficient
>>>>
>>>>      priority to override the state.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m unclear what this means: “It is possible some edits to NACM are
>>>> needed even if no objects are added to the data structure."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:23 PM
>>>> To: Susan Hares
>>>> Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Joel M. Halpern; Jeffrey Haas;
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alia Atlas
>>>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your question.  Let me precise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff proposes that clients specify the priority mechanism is an
>>>>> attribute that is stored in the NACM list on the agent (see Section 5.2
>>>>> as described
>>>>> in the draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs-00 (quoted below).   The
>>>>> client-Agent identities are load in a mechanism which is out-of-band
>>>>> from the I2RS protocol these values.  Into the Client, the Agent's ID is
>>>>> loaded.
>>>>> Into the Agent, the valid client's identity is loaded along with the
>>>>> client's priority.  AAA (Radius/Diameter) is an example of an
>>>>> out-of-band mechanism to pass the information with.  IMU (in my
>>>>> understanding), the NACM on the agent is created based on this AAA
>>>>> loading.  The i2rs secondary identity is loaded via an edit-config
>>>>> mechanism in a config operation (see section 5.1 of Jeff's
>>>>> document.).  Please let me know if my understanding of NACM creation
>>>>> based on AAA input is correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is an optional mode.
>>>>
>>>> There is also a local users table that can be used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I2RS Module Nodes (E.g. I2RS RIB routes) are written within an Agent
>>>>> will be annotated with meta-data with the client-id, priority, and
>>>>> secondary ID.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The only proposed change to section 5.2 requirements is to the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> sentence "Additionally, during commit processing, if
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      node, the commit SHALL fail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> " Additionally, during commit processing" is incorrect because there is
>>>>> not commit processing.   Jeff stated we are still working with both
>>>>> NETCONF
>>>>> and RESTCONF - so we must allow for a commit process.  In the meeting
>>>>> I noted that the architecture indicates a change is possible only if
>>>>> the priority is greater than (>) existing priority.  (First rather than
>>>>> last).
>>>>> Therefore this text should read:  "Additionally, during the operation
>>>>> (RESTCONF)/Commit (NETCONF) processing, if the nodes are found where
>>>>> i2rs-priority is already present, and the priority is equal to or
>>>>> better than the transaction's user's priority for the node, the
>>>>> operation/commit SHALL fail."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any suggestions for modifications to section 5 of Jeff's
>>>>> document?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ============================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff's document 5.2 states:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     To support Multi-Headed Control, I2RS requires that there be a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      decidable means of arbitrating the correct state of data when
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      multiple clients attempt to manipulate the same piece of data.
>>>>> This
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      is done via a priority mechanism with the highest priority winning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      This priority may vary on a per-node or sub-tree basis based for a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      given identity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      This further implies that priority is an attribute that is stored
>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      the NETCONF Access Control Model [RFC6536] as part of a rule-list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      E.g.:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      Ephemeral configuration state nodes that are created or altered by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those
>>>>> nodes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      annotated with metadata.  Additionally, during commit processing,
>>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      node, the commit SHALL fail.  An appropriate error should be
>>>>> returned
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      to the user stating the nodes where the user had insufficient
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>      priority to override the state.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The last paragraph sounds like some nodes will be accepted and others
>>>> rejected.
>>>>
>>>> If any nodes are rejected, the entire edit should be rejected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don;t think the rule-list should store the client priority.
>>>>
>>>> It should be in the 'group' list, or outside NACM completely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 7:40 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To: Susan Hares
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Joel M. Halpern; Jeffrey Haas;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alia Atlas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Andy:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes - the client with priority and secondary identity are inherently
>>>>>> simple additions.   Can you confirm my understanding below based on
>>>>>> Jeff's
>>>>>> document?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what you mean.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> i don't think the client should provide the priority in request
>>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is configured on the agent, not requested by the client.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Can you explain  your statement "I do not want to change NETCONF or
>>>>>> RESTCONF to use client priority?"  What are you proposing that you
>>>>>> do not want to add the NACM list the priority?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to change NETCONF and RESTCONF so that config=true
>>>>> objects use priority.  Only I2RS should use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> ===============
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Example
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 1) any multiple TCP sessions from a client application will use a
>>>>>> different ID if they want a different priority for write of an
>>>>>> object
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>                Application 1:  TCP session 1 -  priority 1,
>>>>>> secondary-identity  "pub-sub monitor"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>                Application 1:  TCP session 2 - priority 10,
>>>>>> secondary-identity "tracing monitor"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>           Application 1:  TCP session 3 -  priority 20, opaque "Weekly
>>>>>> config"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>           Application 1:  TCP session 4 -  priority 55, opaque
>>>>>> "Emergency config"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff's META-data  example:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>     <foo xmlns:i2rs="https://ietf.example.com/i2rs"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>           i2rs:i2rs-secondary-identity="user1"
>>>>>> i2rs:i2rs-priority="47">
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>          ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>      </foo>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> For my example TCP session 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>      <foo xmlns:i2rs="http:s//ietf.example.com/i2rs"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>           I2rs:i2rs-secondary-identity="pub-sub montior"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> i2rs:i2rs-priority="1">
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen's client example:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>       list i2rs-client {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>          key name;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>         leaf name {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            description "The client name";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            type i2rs:client-name;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>          }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>          leaf priority {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>             description "The priority value assigned to this client.";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            type i2rs:client-priority;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>      +--rw rule-list [name]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>         +--rw name     string
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>         +--rw group*   union
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>         +--rw rule [name]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw name string
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw module-name?  union
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw (rule-type)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |  +--:(protocol-operation)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |  |  +--rw rpc-name?  union
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |  +--:(notification)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |  |  +--rw notification-name?  union
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |  +--:(data-node)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            |     +--rw path node-instance-identifier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw access-operations?  union
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw action action-type
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw comment?  string
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>            +--rw i2rs:i2rs-priority i2rs-priority-type
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you proposing something different than Jeff's proposal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:17 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Andy Bierman; Joel M. Halpern; Jeffrey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Haas; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alia Atlas; Susan Hares
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 06:04:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although I should be promoting use of NACM, I am not so sure it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> should be mandatory for I2RS or required to configure I2RS client
>>>>>>>> priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>      list i2rs-client {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>         key name;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>         leaf name {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>            description "The client name";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>            type i2rs:client-name;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>         leaf priority {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>           description "The priority value assigned to this client.";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>           type i2rs:client-priority;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> So what is i2rs:client-name - is it any different from a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> NETCONF/RESTCONF username?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Is is probably not different.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> NACM maps user names into groups and NACM allows to have the
>>>>>>> mapping
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> supplied by an external source (e.g. RADIUS). If this priority
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> mapping is kept separate from NACM, would we need to provision
>>>>>>> means
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> to get the priority from AAA as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> My point showing the 2 item list is that the information needed to
>>>>>> implement I2RS client priority is rather trivial.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It can certainly be made really complicated by the IETF, but it is
>>>>>> an inherently trivial configuration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> And the bigger question: Do we create something specific for I2RS
>>>>>>> or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> are we going to extend the generic YANG/NC/RC framework to provide
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> the tools I2RS needs? This is probably a question the NETCONF WG
>>>>>>> has
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> to answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It is good to make reusable features.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to change NETCONF or RESTCONF to use client priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Let I2RS prove it is useful first.  I am not convinced it will
>>>>>> really help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like an implementation detail that is being turned into ad
>>>>>> administrative task.  If multiple clients from multiple vendors are
>>>>>> stepping on each other, then the likely outcome of a priority change
>>>>>> by the administrator will be to select which clients should continue
>>>>>> working and which should be broken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> /js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> i2rs mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> i2rs mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>>
>>>
>>