Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

+1 - to Juegen's comment that the distinction between symmetric keys and
asymmetric keys should be clear and obvious. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen
Schoenwaelder
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:44 PM
To: Kent Watsen
Cc: 'Netconf'
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Unfortunately, nobody likes to make the distinction symmetric keys vs
asymmetric keys clear and obvious - instead we have keystore vs. keychain
and draft titles such as 'Keystore Model' and 'Routing Key Chain YANG Data
Model'. And authors then prefer to qualify things as 'routing' and 'system'
in the abstract, which does not help either.
I meanwhile have given up on this.

/js

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:41:17PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> We renamed our "keychain" module to "keystore" about four months ago, in
part to help disambiguate it from the rtgwg's "key-chain" module.  The
rtgwg's key-chain module is specific to symmetric keys used in routing
protocols, whereas the netconf keystore module is primarily focused on
asymmetric keys used in authentication protocols.  We discussed a while back
(> 1yr ago) about potential overlap and decided that there was none.  During
YANG doctor review, I encouraged Acee to add a statement about the
non-relationship, but he didn't go for it.  FWIW, the PCE-PCEP module plans
to use both the key-chain and keystore modules.
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> -----ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----
> 
> What interaction, if any, is there between
> 
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-15.txt
> This document describes the key chain YANG data model.
> file "[e-mail]"
> 
> currently in IETF Last Call, and
> 
> draft-ietf-netconf-system-keychain-00
> This document defines a YANG data module for a system-level keychain 
> mechanism file "[e-mail]"
> 
> ?
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Benoit Claise'" <[e-mail]>; "'Susan Hares'"
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:32 PM
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > based on the recent discussion and proposals please find below the
> updated
> > charter proposal for NETCONF WG.
> >
> > Please comment before March 24, 2017.
> >
> >
> > Following Benoit's support the I2RS-related additions have been 
> > added
> as a
> > separated item.
> >
> > Being dependent on netmod-revised-datastores point 6 and 7 have been
> defined
> > as a goal without a deadline.
> >
> >
> > Mehmet
> >
> >
> > Network Configuration (netconf)
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Charter
> >
> >
> >
> > Current Status: Active
> >
> >
> >
> > Chairs:
> >
> >      Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
> >
> >     Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Operations and Management Area Directors:
> >
> >      Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> >
> >      Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Operations and Management Area Advisor:
> >
> >      Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Mailing Lists:
> >
> >      General Discussion: [e-mail]
> >
> >      To Subscribe:    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >
> >      Archive:
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/
> >
> >
> >
> > Description of Working Group:
> >
> >
> >
> >   Configuration of networks of devices has become a critical
> requirement
> >
> >   for operators in today's highly interconnected networks. Large and
> >
> >   small operators alike have developed their own mechanisms or have
> used
> >
> >   vendor specific mechanisms to transfer configuration data to and
> from
> >
> >   a device and to examine device state information which may impact
> the
> >
> >   configuration. Each of these mechanisms may be different in 
> > various
> >
> >   aspects, such as session establishment, user authentication,
> >
> >   configuration data exchange, and error responses.
> >
> >
> >
> >   The NETCONF protocol (RFC 6241) provides mechanisms to install,
> >
> >   manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. 
> > NETCONF
> >
> >   is based on the secure transport (SSH is mandatory to implement
> while
> >
> >   TLS is an optional transport). The NETCONF protocol is data 
> > modeling
> >
> >   language independent, but YANG (RFC 7950) is the recommended 
> > NETCONF
> >
> >   modeling language, which introduces advanced language features for
> >
> >   configuration management.
> >
> >
> >
> >   NETCONF WG recently finalized the development of RESTCONF protocol
> >
> >   (RFC 8040) which provides an interface over HTTPs for accessing 
> > data
> >
> >   defined in YANG. RESTCONF is based on the capabilities and uses 
> > the
> >
> >   datastore concept defined in the NETCONF protocol specification. 
> > In
> >
> >   support of RESTCONF the YANG-Patch (RFC 8072) mechanism has been
> >
> >   provided for applying patches to configuration datastores. The 
> > YANG
> >
> >   Module Library (RFC 7895) provides information about all YANG
> modules
> >
> >   used by a network management server.
> >
> >
> >
> >   Last but not least NETCONF and RESTCONF Call Home (RFC 8071) have
> been
> >
> >   developed, which enable a server to initiate a secure connection 
> > to
> a
> >
> >   NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.
> >
> >
> >
> >   In the current phase of NETCONF's incremental development the
> >
> >   workgroup will focus on following items:
> >
> >
> >
> >   1. Finalize the YANG data module for a system-level keystore
> mechanism,
> >
> >   that can be used to hold onto asymmetric private keys and
> certificates
> >
> >   that are trusted by the system advertising support for this module.
> >
> >   Based on the known dependencies this draft has the highest 
> > priority
> >
> >   for the WG.
> >
> >
> >
> >   2. Finalize Server and Client Configuration YANG modules for both
> >
> >   NETCONF and RESTCONF as well as the Client and Server Models for 
> > SSH
> >
> >   and TLS.
> >
> >
> >
> >   3. Finalize the Zero-touch provisioning for NETCONF or
> RESTCONF-based
> >
> >   Management as a technique to establish a secure network management
> >
> >   relationship between a newly delivered network device configured
> with
> >
> >   just its factory default settings, and the Network Management
> System)
> >
> >
> >
> >   4. Provide a revised version of RFC 6536 (NETCONF Access Control
> >
> >   Model) by adding support for RESTCONF and the YANG 1.1. constructs
> >
> >   like "action" and the "notification" statements.
> >
> >
> >
> >   5. Provide a set of documents enabling advanced notification/
> >
> >   subscription capabilities, which gracefully co-exist in a 
> > deployment
> >
> >   of RFC 5277. The new capabilities include e.g. transport
> independence,
> >
> >   multiple dynamic and configured subscriptions in a transport
> >
> >   session. RFC 5277 will be obsoleted in parallel to the publication
> of
> >
> >   the new document set. Following specifications will be addressed:
> >
> >    - Protocol-neutral notification framework, i.e., explaining the
> >
> >      concepts of subscriptions, filters, subscription state
> >
> >      notifications, replay, etc. and defining the associated YANG 
> > data
> >
> >      model, RPCs, etc.
> >
> >    - Definition of notifications sent over NETCONF and how YANG
> >
> >      notifications are encoded in XML and JSON. Include 
> > considerations
> >
> >      for parallel support / implementation compatibility with
> RFC-5277.
> >
> >    - Definition of notifications sent over RESTCONF and HTTP2 and 
> > how
> >
> >      YANG notifications are encoded in XML and JSON. Include 
> > specifics
> >
> >      of call-home and heartbeat for subscriptions.
> >
> >    - The subscription and push mechanism for YANG datastores 
> > allowing
> >
> >      subscriber applications to request updates from a YANG datastore.
> >
> >
> >
> >   6. Provide a revision for the NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols and 
> > the
> >
> >   used datastore framework building on the datastore concept in 
> > NETMOD
> >
> >   revised datastores work. Bug fixing will be done and potential
> >
> >   extensions will be added. Provide guidance on how to adapt and use
> >
> >   YANG with NETCONF and RESCONF protocols. NETCONF XML Encoding 
> > Rules
> >
> >   from RFC 7950 will be moved to RFC6241bis.
> >
> >
> >
> >   7. Define capabilities for NETCONF and RESTCONF to support I2RS
> protocol
> >
> >   and ephemeral state datastore requirements.
> >
> >
> >
> >   Based on the implementation, deployment experience and inter-
> >
> >   operability testing, the WG aims to produce a NETCONF status 
> > report
> >
> >   in a later stage. The result may be clarifications for RFC6241 and
> >
> >   RFC6242 and addressing any reported errata.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Goals and Milestones:
> >
> >   Done     Submit NETCONF/RESTCONF Call Home to AD/IESG for
> consideration as
> > Proposed Standard
> >
> >   Done     Submit YANG Library to AD/IESG for consideration as
> Proposed
> > Standard
> >
> >   Done     Submit RESTCONF to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed
> Standard
> >
> >   Done     Submit YANG Patch to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed
> > Standard
> >
> >
> >
> >   May 2017  WGLC for Zero-touch configuration mechanism
> >
> >   Jun 2017  Submit Zero-touch configuration to AD/IESG for
> consideration as
> > Proposed Standard
> >
> >   May 2017  WGLC for system-level keystore mechanism
> >
> >   Jun 2017  Submit keystore mechanism to AD/IESG for consideration 
> > as Proposed Standard
> >
> >   May 2017  WGLC for Server and Client models for NETCONF and 
> > RESTCONF
> >
> >   Jun 2017  Submit Server and Client Configuration models to AD/IESG
> for
> > consideration as Proposed Standard
> >
> >   May 2017  WGLC for Client and Server Models for SSH and TLS
> >
> >   Jun 2017  Submit Client and Server Models for SSH and TLS to 
> > AD/IESG
> for
> > consideration as Proposed Standard
> >
> >   Jun 2017  WGLC for RFC 6536bis (NETCONF Access Control Model)
> >
> >   Jul 2017  Submit RFC 6536bis to AD/IESG for consideration as
> Proposed
> > Standard
> >
> >   Jun 2017  WGLC for advanced Notification/Subscription 
> > specifications
> >
> >   Jul 2017  Submit Notification/Subscription specifications to 
> > AD/IESG
> for
> > consideration as Proposed Standard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:49 PM
> > To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Mehmet Ersue
> <[e-mail]>;
> > 'Susan Hares' <[e-mail]>; 'Andy Bierman' <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/8/2017 12:57 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Mehmet, any changes to the NC/RC protocols should be 
> > done
> in
> > the NETCONF WG.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Regards, Benoit
> >
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf