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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:09:09PM +0000, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lmap [mailto:[e-mail]] 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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>