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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
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 3BEB5129A15 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:09:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FBcIT9tvun_d for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24AD12940A for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v18D4obH000468; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:09:39 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 28g0d1kff7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:09:38 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v18D9aef028363; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:09:37 -0500
Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v18D9UwV028215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:09:33 -0500
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:19 GMT
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v18D9JF4031932; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:09:19 -0600
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v18D9Aef031427; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:09:10 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42340E23AF; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:09:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:09:09 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-yang-10
Thread-Index: AQHSdludDjcLPOVF3EGR+tuQhbA1+KFIZnCAgAFxdgCAAQnkAIATM8KAgAFQUwD//8OgsA==
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6894C8@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20170208113501.GC97665@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.205.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-08_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702080128
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/k7uv0jO9B3k-E2id8YFcAqXC5nU>
Cc: "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 13:09:44 -0000

> -----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" ?

Al