Re: [lmap] YANG/RESTCONF security considerations: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty <> Thu, 16 March 2017 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269B21294EC; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f6JiFv9Bt2yg; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419B81294F0; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o126so24517640pfb.3; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sBDrU+aCK6dDchi6MGjGUtEoUbn+Vjq8FDa6E1JEZgc=; b=TBY7oCMIkcGVHM4etpo51+XwJe2V0cpGEIq6TRcXxN7XquSXwHPoa/5vwh7xPohWZz EgPj3MXNr5icaVkZ9iuzRb8bQOijyINdYUt/8izg1e2m6BDoOim7/KUiz8uscAQXbXkr E3Nf6u1ug9RBVH7vZ6/Bx7j3aCGWs87MF2+JhbVPOnJc8htlTyrh0AGV0hcR1TaMeaL4 DP68eMHUtkfq2uxQWg5kvV7mQEpEXyAU0+Gm1IJ66G6JU5rBFFj428f7xFlSDvooshcA hlu1HuzHApxzE0PmSCSyV96TsrL0PHluxf76VRb+O2nKgqJ4g4fH7Zv1G1f0PGwPxlod ybxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sBDrU+aCK6dDchi6MGjGUtEoUbn+Vjq8FDa6E1JEZgc=; b=hhxY6VHlxTek/TccmhpCS9ny/qKP79pdyQhMgBGQf1alowigDO+ji6feTNmilG9pHX gMZ0z6Xt3AqHGdLSQy2+uFa+UFtg137+73DfPCy2ROVtDHwYzbFqgKBjw5kdU9tIDWhY IR3UIvk+OpuTx95yrqzo6mSPEeDvw27JKmpTAHqzGhR2soL6zeXqkUG4z5YbU8ofmBSy SPXmoLqk5lYmI4ia7yhLgy71JvwMH0crzIQ44PprproaZtEEfj7dLtTENM/3cC63HBOT uP9mViZfYzIgKRBXYlCRTvAL4hDkIMmE8ccRL4mk+hT1WXTfXCIOmO7H+8JJq8n12cpT TbEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3UZaw+Pj48tiWZIxxDe+E4gxGo9PLY8QUWPYOBG2QgqX/vUMlSPRXbqU68ea7ZKi6Np3YLYZ97ax9Diw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d9mr5204042pln.177.1489671186877; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20170313211835.GA53972@elstar.local> <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:33:03 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Benoit Claise <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Dan Romascanu <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lmap] YANG/RESTCONF security considerations: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:11 -0000

Hi Benoit,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Benoit Claise <> wrote:
> Dear all,
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:09:02PM -0700, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>> The security considerations looks good, but can't YANG also be accessed
>>> via RESTCONF?  What considerations are needed for that?  I thunk we went
>>> through this for I2RS, do considerations for RESTCONF apply to this YANG
>>> module?
>> Yes, the document is using the old template. Looking at
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-12.txt (posted March 5th) and
>> I do not
>> see a new template either. I think I recall having seen some
>> discussion somewhere (probably related to I2RS) but then I do not see
>> new text in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-12.txt. While I can make
>> up my own text, I think I prefer following a new template. Benoit?
> Yes, a new template is better.
> Note that the I2RS discussion is a different one, because they want the
> ability to have yet another protocol (different that NETCONF and RESTCONF),
> an insecure protocol.

I believe it is the same discussion.  I2RS is using NETCONF and
RESTCONF only for transports.  The other considerations for their
document was bout markings in a data model that allow for an approach
that is the reverse of what we normally see/recommend.

> The discussion regarding the new template with a RESTCONF reference started
> on the NETMOD mailing list. The SEC ADs are copied. We want to make sure
> that you guys are fine with it.

I'll see if I can find this to help wrap it up.


> Regards, Benoit
>> /js


Best regards,