Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-yang-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 08 February 2017 13:59 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 532C4129A3D for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:59:54 -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, 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=FfeGihH9; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=OoxpvPDL
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 FBS4ST0UFgTi for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:59:52 -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 C092F129A32 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3A020681; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:59:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:59:52 -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=cKjhLMePS/9gs0yDhBILTziu1CA=; b=FfeGih H9MD+jFQNUwo7G9r2pUZS6OMBILUQbhv+NB/LuVusKeCrtEHNJOFj0Q2Bb+Rrhxr TpYTvKYmsazZPqaeRmK397/cAOyISCKbStlFwNUMETrzoxt9l/0saE9jOLBZwR/g zjNG8fb76mMBJCyDeUTU41c3QwcZZ/hZJ0qXY=
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=cKjhLMePS/9gs0 yDhBILTziu1CA=; b=OoxpvPDLzBZecEXDJ/mjdGo8WADJmC/9e+LbhRG3NS/MBG O7HpiIrl+APW6RUgJhDvneG4NqEPCQdlNjOyAYHjbOGfQGa+lr+OYJ+GUqmtBMLN 8uiWNcl+x4y4OlJTx3+XwTM5i8LhI/0LH+kgrFti7nosa0zb2FZMP5ghAvg7o=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:WCSbWHGRHhZ9DlNDtZ4_8tVb71ZP_OEh0qZEMTKw3HA_gfSyS088tg>
X-Sasl-enc: uqaMg8Yf2eQzroeV7cUVFwoWr+PxJHcQg8oD9g0LfDvV 1486562391
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8812.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.186]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3045E2414A; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:59:51 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_29AC5EDC-4012-4CEC-B698-1C95D398FDBC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <20170208131502.GD98187@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:59:51 -0500
Message-Id: <C5157F4A-D717-4230-8532-EE63B00DDCD5@cooperw.in>
References: <49AB42C1-3DE5-4289-9B32-173B69C191DC@cooperw.in> <20170124202305.GA38068@elstar.local> <E2346FCD-B119-4385-BBF8-B97207DFB693@cooperw.in> <20170126101706.GD43055@elstar.local> <D6E49B78-0B0A-4DBD-A854-895B293493AD@cooperw.in> <20170208113501.GC97665@elstar.local> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6894C8@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <20170208131502.GD98187@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/WoCz-vw6oWx68sefyuDpcU_cr8E>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C \(AL\)" <acmorton@att.com>, "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-yang-10
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, 08 Feb 2017 13:59:54 -0000

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:09:09PM +0000, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lmap [mailto:lmap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen
>> ...
>>> 
>>>>> Why would the controller necessarily even know where such
>>> executables reside on the file system? And I know there are a lot of
>>> things that could go wrong if a Controller gets compromised, but it just
>>> seems like making it so trivial for an MA implementation to literally
>>> just run the executable name specified by the Controller creates
>>> unnecessary risk.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps we need to add more explicit text to /tasks/task saying that a
>>>>> configured LMAP task MUST resolve to a task listed in the capabilities.
>>>>> This is in my view what matters most.
>>>> 
>>>> Agree.
>>> 
>>> Here is the new text:
>>> 
>>>      list task {
>>>        key name;
>>> 	description
>>>          "The list of tasks configured on the LMAP agent. Note
>>>           that a configured task must resolve to a task listed
>>>           in the capabilities. Attempts to execute a configured
>>>           task that is not listed in the capabilities result in
>>>           a runtime execution error.";
>>> 
>> [ACM] 
>> The second sentence is a requirement on implementations, 
>> for the Controller to obey and for the MA to evaluate, so
>> s/must/MUST/
>> in the new text?  Or, "ought to" ?
>> 
> 
> I am fine with MUST but I always happily follow advice of IESG members
> when it comes to RFC 2119 language. So will use MUST for now.

Agree that MUST is better here.

The rest of the changes look good to me.

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/ <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>