Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:49 AM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> 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
> > > <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>