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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>