[netconf] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 30 April 2019 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1648120048; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.95.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <155665377891.7475.13101015755522983059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:49:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9MA_kgeUt3pq-SuUlRucFcX9QBM>
Subject: [netconf] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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 19:49:39 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-24: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections 2.4.2.1 and 2.5.6 seems to describe a mechanism (replay) to access
historical data that was potentially collected prior to a given subscriber
having access to it.  This appears to be an explicitly designed feature.  No
push back on that.  However, I believe that explicitly stating this arrangement
is warranted.  Perhaps something on the order of the following could be added
to the Security Considerations -- “The replay mechanisms described in Sections
2.4.2.1 and 2.5.6 provides access to historical event records.  By design, the
access control model that protects these records could enable subscribers to
view data to which they were not authorized at the time of collection.”


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Section 2.5.1.  Per Figure 8, if a modify operation fails re-evaluation
(the “no (2)” branch) wouldn’t it go directly to “invalid” (instead of through
“unsupportable->invalid”)?

(2) Section 2.5.2, what are “transport specific call-home operations”?

(3) Section 2.5.6.  Typos

s/timegap/time gap/
s/successfully/successfully/