IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 15 February 2017 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1691297B8 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=tCK++r1N; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=a1jrYBjK
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vo07t1tvwYoI for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34CE129717 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2278920C3C; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:45:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:45:27 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=VgJCDpuircZ4ctsnxi+OfNaP9hs=; b=tCK++r 1NaE3Vin6XdkDHCTEQ9XIUugktFnzXneRHdxZw4NIl9Uo5WpfcWMiHuLctHOBuwH 8gHJqQxQTGKP9IQ/Z98bm3Bgptyi+Y8mnympySWL8gp2Ue9fmaTZ7+OoarwYttYZ SYHMbUH8hrTLYCI73ltdyV9rdYHwOBlkE2PBQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=VgJCDpuircZ4ct snxi+OfNaP9hs=; b=a1jrYBjKRpKAHwCrORRBMUUKoxzY7Muoe1WFI3clMbgmYo C3kXPCipFord/5thg09etsDKVLNgEkqJJVQpjGFd9OZ24Wqe5vYfFYLx9FNqbxKB 8zkeri5+BAYPLFSQmMxOFnoqstGB/ukdN4QRlbpWPVy1Vkp753jAQpOZoQFUg=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:572kWImjX8qhjPDYdV6QmvcaVIlnwiNWRV5_7d6_J5JtGL3BH4yyAg>
X-Sasl-enc: X+nV4KKVcCXMe1wda2DgBJlWZ5+caHjHVUMFeA+HAsBG 1487191526
Received: from [10.24.60.139] (unknown [128.107.241.171]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 10D2024570; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DE41B4F-EBB8-4B4A-9E86-5F4C8C948F2A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <20170208204207.GB99261@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:45:22 -0800
Message-Id: <BB3DC04C-C845-48C1-9A7B-7F6E4A6CB91F@cooperw.in>
References: <20170124160720.GB36955@elstar.local> <31441568-4107-4D08-9D7C-99C6A71F0FE0@cooperw.in> <20170126085354.GA43055@elstar.local> <80A34C5F-7E20-41CF-99DF-2222399CFF07@cooperw.in> <20170131094427.GA59387@elstar.local> <8456A767-C0A1-447D-959C-9E090AB4B50B@cooperw.in> <20170131194757.GA78531@elstar.local> <B05AB715-8270-4F89-92A2-0EB810E07A8C@cooperw.in> <20170208152353.GI98457@elstar.local> <2297A61C-1C13-4C28-AD7E-6C6ABE4CD074@cooperw.in> <20170208204207.GB99261@elstar.local>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/-rabBedtCoyS-W2ngXL92WnMveE>
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:45:29 -0000

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Ok. But in a setup where the controller doesn’t actually need the device-id (because the agent-id is pre-configured and the controller uses that to uniquely identify the MA), this requires the device-id to be divulged to the controller unnecessarily. That case could be accommodated by making both the agent-id and the device-id optional and specifying that the device-id should be provided if it was not provided in pre-configuration.
>> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced. We do not have a notion of 'conditionally
> optional' in the information model and I do not want to introduce
> one.
> 
> In the YANG data mode, the device-id is not present because such an id
> is covered by other YANG models and those models and we have an access
> control model to control access, i.e., access control policies are
> detached from the data definitions. I am fine with a statement that
> people should be careful about exposing device-ids when this is not
> needed in the security considerations but I am against changing the
> information model.

Ok. Let’s go with that plan then.

Alissa

> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email