Re: [Ideas] draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement and "Common Infrastructure"

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Uma,

In your list below, DHT is something (that is flat name space) that LDAP 
does poorly.  But LDAP IS a mapping system that has been around for lots 
of years.

And it has authentication in terms of who can add/update and who can 
inquire on what.

And EAP is NOT minimal RTT!  It is often yet another wrapper to have 
some common wrapper.  In this case, it would be PANA delivering EAP.  So 
we will discuss this all.

Bob

On 07/05/2017 06:58 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> > I said 'requirements' to soften the blow, so to speak, about 'why NOT 
> LDAP'.  Plus the data model to see if it can fit into an LDAP schema.
>
> > Of course we could always go with DAP instead for richer policy 
> control and distributed data support!
>
> I am not sure if this would be LDAP or something else. I presume the 
> context is entities authentication and subsequent operations to 
> indicate policy. Is this correct?
>
> If Yes, I have couple of thoughts:
>
> 1.We ought to focus on category of entities (low power/regular 
> nodes/routers) and see what suits best. Perhaps one of the EAP methods 
> suitable to the environments (minimal RTTs, mutual authentication if 
> needed in some cases)?
>
> 2.Regarding policy – I see your point of “richer policy” but we may 
> have to start with much more simpler policy (say white list/black list 
> on Identifiers) as some of it has to be distributed/shared across 
> without any privacy concerns
>
> 3.Regarding distribution of public parts of policy and other 
> information with Identifiers, we ought to see if we have to use any 
> existing mapping servers (DDT, DHT, Blockchain or some 
> simplified/selective pull based “new” protocol among each providers 
> Identifiers).
>
> May be we might have to discuss problems and requirements bit deeper 
> to hash out the above.
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
> *From:*Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Robert 
> Moskowitz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 05, 2017 7:16 AM
> *To:* tjw ietf <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ideas] draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement and "Common 
> Infrastructure"
>
> Tim,
>
> Well it seems I got an upgrade to contributing to the problem 
> statement.  I missed that in the last go around hours before the draft 
> cutoff.  Thanks Padma.
>
> I said 'requirements' to soften the blow, so to speak, about 'why NOT 
> LDAP'.  Plus the data model to see if it can fit into an LDAP schema.
>
> Of course we could always go with DAP instead for richer policy 
> control and distributed data support!  (was it actually 20 years ago 
> that I worked on this stuff? yikes!)
>
> Bob
>
> On 07/05/2017 10:05 AM, tjw ietf wrote:
>
>     Bob!
>
>     Brian and I had chatted briefly about charter direction and we
>     wanted to hear some of the discussions during the session. And
>     that's what they pay us the big bucks for!
>
>     But I have to agree with your plan of attack.  If we could give
>     some guidance:
>
>     - work on the problem statement and gap analysis but don't invest
>     larger cycles of time on them.
>
>     - requirements are good to capture, but we will shy away from
>     turning them into published documents as they will change over time
>
>     - some discussion on LDAP is very necessary as the code base has
>     gotten quite mature.
>
>     tim
>
>     On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Robert Moskowitz
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Disclaimer:  I had a hand in edits to this version, though I
>         am not listed in the Ack section.  In particular I pushed for
>         "Common Infrastructure", not "Common Control Plane".
>
>
>         We have been talking a lot about Identity and Identifier and
>         metadata.  One of the tasks of this workgroup (and charter
>         item) needs to be data modeling of what is intended to be
>         stored/available.
>
>         Further there needs to be Yet Another Gap Analysis (YAGA?  :)
>         ) on why NOT LDAP or some other mature xyz data store access
>         protocol.  I start with LDAP as there is actually a fit, and
>         the various server implementations are very mature with good,
>         secure, backends and data replication tools.
>
>         It is time to start thinking charter.  The problem statement,
>         gap analysis, and use cases is barely a start.  What the group
>         is going to DO is focus now.
>
>         So I propose two work items:
>
>         Common Infrastructure data modeling (and someone other than me
>         can do it in YANG).
>         Common Infrastructure protocol requirements with a subsection
>         on LDAP comparision.
>
>         Bob
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ideas mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Ideas mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas