IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 07 February 2017 15:26 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 148C0129CB3 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=wE5lVGj0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=t/7AfZff
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 9xYTLO4ji6Tb for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:26:33 -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 275D0129CB4 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9828A20A0D; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:26:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:26:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding: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=+L/xDdoKQr9C4jn AY2ON2Jj6QWU=; b=wE5lVGj0SiQZdQFjmPmV5Nr2Cuwf35VaUYRg7hPtG45HIsH 8nBdVox7+XOgJ03QbTqjdRQeoixr60MGRMU1OiHGjJvpLspNCvzQkCp5eHCK5USA qYGqVCcDAbbr4I3OKDQtFe9WcPjG+HOCB/iq+lK6V1SmtXJwPynNUf3kXXss=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=+L/xDdoKQr9C4jnAY2ON2Jj6QWU=; b=t/7AfZff+OEIn51t4/4l P4/7BCvHX43Dmny+gHpYfIyBRX6oDuHA5UGjxNHGNpa6fBy/KGT/l9HSsQr7eHFq gSg7XcD7b8snBD8m5O7AK1bEJ9FHl6EH0BLMLOBXufd3lN7xZbCI/R8K/z6rw1Pn Os/QhwpAMchXtaNE7SIULMg=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:KOeZWEhiwBfPMWlR3LNNF4hFB2x2unwxJWn2B46mvL8yhY6Hh7V8IA>
X-Sasl-enc: QOo5h0POOdOaYTAj13LcsgsC7GTPggQqXUoWd5GoQ5b3 1486481192
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8812.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.162]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D3FB97E432; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:26:31 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <20170131194757.GA78531@elstar.local>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:26:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B05AB715-8270-4F89-92A2-0EB810E07A8C@cooperw.in>
References: <2CB94EA6-A5F9-4770-9E76-0C7E8676E9CF@cooperw.in> <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>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/S2K0KZKanLyHZmTqdj8uAeT-nCU>
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:26:35 -0000

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:15:52AM -0500, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The status reports go to the LMAP controller, so I do not really see
>>> why there is a specific risk since the controller has access to the
>>> device ID anyway.
>> 
>> I still am missing what is the rationale for sending the device ID in the status reports. I thought the agent ID was meant to uniquely identify the MA.
>> 
> 
> So here we go. I propose the following change:
> 
>  - The ma-status-agent-id becomes optional.
>  - The ma-status-device-id becomes mandatory again.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
>  If a device does not yet have an MA-ID, then the device-id must be
>  accessible such that the controller can configure an MA-ID.

Section 3.1 says:

"The MA may be pre-configured with an MA ID, or may use a Device ID in
   the first Controller contact before it is assigned an MA ID.  The
   Device ID may be a MAC address or some other device identifier
   expressed as a URI.  If the MA ID is not provided at this stage then
   it must be provided by the Controller during Configuration.”

Why would an MA be sending a status report before configuration?

Thanks,
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/>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email