IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 41689128D19; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 tsEmi1IZyJNg; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (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 4F8A91276AF; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t143so48606016pgb.2; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=useDjjQJvHhWY8rR8g6bFXNYUbyC8z7dSIPOpu/1yq0=; b=YWyFc3HlOrDSbuGL4Ut4OnJNfTCXpfyvOmhauz3XgnDOe/jw0/gZX592yMaHzA2NhC zU028HDkHDUFam2xrRpTuu3XjEFYF7WwmhpvdnVkvkiol+HkVeiepHvRe49A2M0l5hj4 yeIi+snGkjfnKX13weEgFjnvroeavszVaT1rz0kAUvhkIzWqYpm3EqAJ3v08GReAkpIV dBXXeQuTDY4KJ1s9FEgMdCeko5X57X1ki2TYokpLHhf/JvjSHn7SjeVkkOAhUy5B0MMi FcV6Lv374ZEOIj9VscOoKt+cUQsnrPqDM2egQQaunr8gEy3g2wlS91yy2TcvA53R2g2f sJVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=useDjjQJvHhWY8rR8g6bFXNYUbyC8z7dSIPOpu/1yq0=; b=rDoPweg4nnPZW4uPVNLLr35ZsmwGevlI/pGhKs5aT8JqZff3P2a2mtdwvYv14NTcGF juI5ixNml67OiMl962UGbVz+rieFhbcK+05uxJuTjNA/J0I53Fk7tSReG/rpluyvwPHe cnbAreshLveDzcpuGDO+w3BkQRxpq2ZAbTsdRBbmboEfAFkVfzGRqUpabMVFgWr9qEUK BmsQPxHHTOc9Q9vCkb5d+mObe4kdj1GltPRENbjF1Jljg5DZvt0fuN7CazMzYuiCwEgS 1yD/PjcU5e1Cvv3PC0ZdAOH+Ar0K/8fUniRlnaGraCFZVKMIeMJ/h/s8MQhPsNj5dSB4 GoAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Na4Z3pWbSEe1w3s42wCewYdcWHFn1xJpvE8vR4X6serv/ieTnMwCeJlkGu9/yJw==
X-Received: by 10.99.213.81 with SMTP id v17mr45894991pgi.130.1490228944847; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:cf77:df90:8934:e85:444c:1d55? ([2602:306:cf77:df90:8934:e85:444c:1d55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b8sm6121986pgn.6.2017.03.22.17.29.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4F8733F.A3BE1%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:29:02 -0700
Cc: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C8953493-5864-452E-A895-E5DC4D8A94F6@gmail.com>
References: <CABCOCHSacn15vfo8MR0K-UJJo6E0AZ14Gwj3M43KYkgbtwK8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <02ee01d2a22b$295b2be0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <BA52FB19-D4B9-4E1A-BFE5-7CCE6F5554B1@juniper.net> <20170321174358.GA36769@elstar.local> <65E2B5E1-A1D0-45C1-94E8-F10A35042295@juniper.net> <FF00B7D1-0418-49C5-93AF-59D837354879@gmail.com> <4A73C3C3-61F3-4988-B163-264B29EE1BA0@juniper.net> <445D4A52-0EC8-4AAD-ABC4-22CAC3B3169A@juniper.net> <D4F8733F.A3BE1%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/8rs4cCJ-ccwd0vBwHn9yNDPkIao>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:29:07 -0000

Acee,


> On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Kent,
> 
> 
> On 3/22/17, 6:21 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>> [resending, sorry, wrong key-chain draft alias used before]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mahesh,
>> 
>> 
>>>> Again, a keystore is not limited to asymmetric keys.   At the moment
>>>> it is exclusively asymmetric, but that's only because we (the authors)
>>>> moved the passwords (read symmetric keys) that were present in the
>>>> previous version to the ietf-ssh-client module, but they may return,
>>>> as many real-world keystore mechanisms do manage passwords as well
>>>> (e.g., Mac OSX's Keychain Access utility).
>>>> 
>>>> The module names are fine, but we could update the draft title. How
>>>> about "A System-level Keystore Model"?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How about "Asymmetric Key System-level Keystore Model"?
>>> 
>>> And add a reference to keychain model for symmetric keys.
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding "asymmetric", as mentioned above, while the keystore module
>> is currently exclusively asymmetric, it's probable that passwords will
>> be added to it in the future.
>> 
>> Regarding "system-level", I'm not 100% sure.  Specifically, the PCE-PCEP
>> use of the ietf-tls-client module, which uses the keystore module, gives
>> me pause.  Is it still a system-level use then?
>> 
>> Maybe one of the authors of the RTGWG key-chain draft to try to express
>> how the two modules differ,
> 
> Is this a trick question? As the author of ietf-keystore, I¹d fully expect
> that you know the difference.

But that is the point. The keychain draft description is not just for the authors of keystore draft.

> 
>> and why they shouldn't be merged into one
>> draft.
> 
> They shouldn¹t be merged since they serve entirely different purposes and
> will be implemented and deployed by different sets of network devices.

I would agree, but to not call out the difference between the drafts and the models would be a disservice to the larger community.

> Furthermore, the key-chain draft is more mature and referenced by 6-10
> other IETF YANG models.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kent
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email