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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 08 February 2017 19:38 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 B394D129428 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:38:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=J9oMxd2N; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TiyPT/sl
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 KCjukolkF-d6 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:38:38 -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 6ED2B129FD3 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE13B204F7; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:38:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:38:37 -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=1QQJbay1YGXkkc9 1RpLIARCgabQ=; b=J9oMxd2NiiRqFlWXLJ1Fo1PbTvhPJPqo2HVyclGwBr0Ofv/ KzSq25E1ZlkpJ2MrJs+7AWKrcb7lt/kV3HIMETJcpbuDaoWyxGkKs5OJGhgSfEcX EUebzpOh9OGeyGsef+Uf5tWtv0XVbisQD2YuyJZ0ixN0FitYZs9WUZ6n/0xw=
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=1QQJbay1YGXkkc91RpLIARCgabQ=; b=TiyPT/slsSI8fy3KSiz0 zINuvhbrHdKvDsDMJ+DjabYkOYAEqqbsw0V/SGvlHMrcDDbM4832WYOIk9gKhiX+ 6EAm1mzmd+novspgK5zfG0da3PBkYJVJEL1T/CxcI0MOyc2aWm+RTLp+fegUdbxN AWvjOty8OJV1LqbDYObyZjE=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vXObWA62qgZlqcnXr_Ue9lIn6KTi8TasKqbCUxde2Qx4RCr0KpXjVQ>
X-Sasl-enc: r7uOU6JoyGgm/PZX7OvrqyyUEc2ieEb71bqUKiM/5VUc 1486582717
Received: from dhcp-10-150-9-221.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.76]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8FAB57E459; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:38:37 -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: <20170208152353.GI98457@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:38:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2297A61C-1C13-4C28-AD7E-6C6ABE4CD074@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> <B05AB715-8270-4F89-92A2-0EB810E07A8C@cooperw.in> <20170208152353.GI98457@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/oJoiC4sTgxdq_rAkSnxY1RHbGDk>
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:38:39 -0000

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
> 
> The ma-status-obj models status information, it is not modeling a
> status report. I think the reason for having the device-id in the
> status information is that this is the only way to obtain it if it is
> not configured.

Ok. But in a setup where the controller doesn’t actually need the device-id (because the agent-id is pre-configured and the controller uses that to uniquely identify the MA), this requires the device-id to be divulged to the controller unnecessarily. That case could be accommodated by making both the agent-id and the device-id optional and specifying that the device-id should be provided if it was not provided in pre-configuration.

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/>