Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AF01202F6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 aEZuDPSIPasp for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15E241202CC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d15so1708700ljc.7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nhL8vmxc5wvQxDYjg2tqIjTF0cq+B33k+wnrLmqJwaM=; b=eode0nWdwgW9fuhcEUf0fMXQy8cSAOVoAYl9QGoookCCgAUs4Bm0WC53Awy0u4h6KF JPTL9K1s5MniGVr+EKKIQVN67osqNDpLDsmq85mfbQMbIUu64gKCPdyrfkHTewmHen/b z8hqihILC2SO57wlPPcb1nYOe02u3GvQCHWRuIpzlsACcrpiS5xYYYyccDlAzGrDF+EY W7EALHeqsyFt68a+jUSMqjqBfTYS4fkWSfo0EZjETO8Heuav13aeXNwexkopq92BP/fs 0BTM62fJjTt9rEt8wwwwdaiyKXR1cCvPxVWBOjgCQ/WAt0QUMWf3xdLbJDdyLUpkHuOX sa/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nhL8vmxc5wvQxDYjg2tqIjTF0cq+B33k+wnrLmqJwaM=; b=FTpBi69W4gZUZRzyv9lOckAIPxVbpKhLXWTRrn0nSEpGusgkKqiPmJf2Ye5O1PTx5b 44nMITC3rPT4GcQoJF/gXGeAwCLK5ljL3b9vs2lpm/jWkMSjOW7tbc3jlXdFE1Zp9SpL iGf6dck0BJeL4wabG6wOxNnEq8IhFV+zTssaqCmfYHQ+QjZWjLzEquUvzBxFb28zTdRt q/MSTCGH6SLwvwV2TDwkbAutUDHwEgfqeMR5FVsWbD04ltMay7v8VwzXsRpnjqi8Ux4D dr8IAVhJ5Y5QYEkECDGb/Q6DD/oTzniL69RH+vys7XzWJjoZBAkTy7RRwshexRxew96d PNAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWAG5bdPwWnwVRt/RtTgs6LAGPdEQCnY7w2Apu8l0YrOziTxxXO VrtWV14HRuEHfVl0RSLc9A8268+Rr9mgPUmUxFZg4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwpdZAjjP0gPaDN1dGD5auErdXtaGIYKQB++/ZQ0Igy6K09XGY9WHTMCma7FnmAWRo2CPrtiYxXwnaI4FvIRcQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:80d4:: with SMTP id r20mr13972017ljg.173.1556647657958; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0100016a69e36565-37279712-e5de-4c48-9a8a-7397d54c11b3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <VI1PR07MB47353B20AF138B5B8B702285833A0@VI1PR07MB4735.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0100016a6e2130be-ee556dd0-e993-459f-be28-65fe1f74ece8-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190430.144930.844252169549242587.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190430.144930.844252169549242587.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:07:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQaOyMa+rebtFbnboxvKhs4-YFvJwFrreA7W-7PnaPxuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b185050587c3466c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/395VPmu6glgtv5DyDrN12Wlb3uk>
Subject: Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:07:43 -0000

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:49 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:

> Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>; wrote:
> >
> > Correct, as I didn’t think there was consensus yet.  Perhaps there is
> > rough-consensus, and it may be that the only way to gauge that is to
> > try and see how much push back there is.
> >
> > Okay, so how about this, based on this thread, there appears to be
> > support to add a flag to control if a key should be “permanently
> > hidden” or not, in which case configuration is created.
>
> I (still) object to this.  Actions shouldn't create config.  We
> already have generic protcol operations to do this.  We go from a
> document-oriented configuration model towards a command-oriented
> model.  Not good.  In RESTCONF, the generic methods support things
> like ETags, which I suspect you don't want to replicate in this
> action?   Will the action support all error-options of edit-config,
> like rollback-on-error?
>
>
>

Strongly agree with Martin.
This issue of "server-generated config" has been around from the start.
NMDA was supposed to solve it. (It didn't).
There seems to be a need for standardized mechanisms to tell the
server how to magically instantiate data in <intended> that does not appear
in <running>.

The solution should be consistent and not ad-hoc.
This is a similar problem to config templates (which also lack any standard
solution).


Andy

Some comments on the new text:
>
> In action generate-hidden-key, it should be stated that the public-key
> will be populated, and that the private-key will exist but report
> 'permanently-hidden'.
>
> In action install-hidden-key, shouldn't both public-key and
> private-key be mandatory?  Also state that the private-key will report
> 'permanently-hidden'.
>
> In leaf private-key, the type binary part of the union doesn't have a
> description, and the description for the leaf itself says:
>
>        A binary that contains the value of the private key.
>
> which is not quite correct.
>
> I think we should state that the enum 'permanently-hidden' is only
> reported in operational state.
>
> The new descriptions say:
>
>             [...] present only in
>             <operational> and bound to the lifetime of the parent
>             'config true' node.
>
> Aren't all nodes bound to the lifetime of their parent?
> The action is invoked in a node that exists in <operational> and it
> creates a key.  What does the statement tell me?
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> >
> > This change will be in the next update, in about a week’s time, if no
> > objections are raised.
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 30, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Balázs Kovács
> > > <balazs.kovacs@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kent,
> > >
> > > I don’t see the your proposal below addressed in latest update
> > > (keystore-09). Was it missed?
> > >
> > > My recommendation is to modify the "generate/install-hidden-key"
> > > (renamed to just "generate/install-key") actions to have a flag
> > > indicating if
> > > the key should be "permanently hidden" (perhaps by using a TPM) or
> > > not, in
> > > which case configuration is created, same as if the client had used
> > > <edit-
> > > config>, but without needing to touch the key.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree that having a flag to control the behavior is useful and I
> > > think there should be explicit text how the action fails in case the
> > > requested action cannot be performed.
> > >
> > > Br,
> > > Balazs
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>