[netconf] question re: NACM, rfc8341

Stan Kmiec <sk@ndt-inc.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sk@ndt-inc.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 0ECBA3A0EBB for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:34:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=ndt-inc.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 HwJBrmgLO7t7 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delivery.mailspamprotection.com (delivery.mailspamprotection.com [146.66.121.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C5233A0EBA for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 108.134.209.35.bc.googleusercontent.com ([35.209.134.108] helo=usm9.siteground.biz) by se17.mailspamprotection.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <sk@ndt-inc.com>) id 1knp7I-0006Tf-Ce for netconf@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:34:18 -0600
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ndt-inc.com ; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To: References:To:From:Reply-To:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Fw4PpUoHZLrtKpxBWRKOW3sYg/nVj9YW9d/gUv/booo=; b=XIxs1bVPcKLZnrs9OKqOW5T1/5 h6KKYmYBYva29AN0MeRngxRLp5sxeg7SmFuPGzczBQJHDloJ9JArNq4cBVVSFeKRqLUKEMDvoICEX wkfE5xB+gvGLxaxWCIvmtdkscZXnx3uDItJPUU1DnZJBOMMXeOwBim7bf/X8Ig2G/4NWWN956epJD 8MiT+1K7sNTVUjc6tJOAHy460xYdNW+NEbLsea4iMCdXD+2NDyMcW2H37Bo/PDVbr04qgaSnG/xID jCAECaV8jG73ULzGwA6XBMUotXNlu3wHtOyqO0x7YRwgtLns6NAvr/IosJe4HJYBtUUeXAtM0taKq cVXWB6vg==;
Received: from [76.68.22.33] (port=55593 helo=StanPC) by usm9.siteground.biz with esmtpsa tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.90devstart-1178-b07e68e5-XX) (envelope-from <sk@ndt-inc.com>) id 1knp7I-000LCD-4J for netconf@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:34:16 -0600
Reply-To: <sk@ndt-inc.com>
From: "Stan Kmiec" <sk@ndt-inc.com>
To: <netconf@ietf.org>
References:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:34:16 -0500
Organization: NDT
Message-ID: <00c201d6cffc$ff16a270$fd43e750$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C3_01D6CFD3.16409A70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AdbP+uiiFejajzSeTYe6i0JtngMVbgAAeyiQ
X-Originating-IP: 35.209.134.108
X-SpamExperts-Domain: usm9.siteground.biz
X-SpamExperts-Username: 35.209.134.108
Authentication-Results: mailspamprotection.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=35.209.134.108@usm9.siteground.biz
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT8aYAGbZeE8CYT4yLNUxRWoPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5w+SJzRtEQwO4n6+8/g0CWk8wOq2zirMPonLyKNm5/pIoEU BxmBy9xZs9GJXx4QVrsk4Ndu06h2Q8QP5GQeNUYfFRth/Byc3JFltXUjMSNDfjcmZFuxTRO4+xy4 GspSqlztmz3xatm0dHPWss/dXmEnyzngJGhbi/Y9OHM+mXUShSdM1HQZkMf12e/uCFbfnS0jf+/T iFfEZgqyoRZq3TYjRI32L6Pl/MwW60+mEIcar4hSnw9YyoGHx/ukuag1WKCIIeyaJS8ubrzvkuRY m5rPFyrtVW4KaRSURqFyxA+5hxTHswbbB/ha+ZWrSAi8Skyxe17QIfgTGOgXzm19/3QDUdShXBqj IqKx5jnB7z3Yhhp3eWzGQOuNjEBo/WEbPRDIZwKDK1Qy7Yn0clcDVSjgq0HLIlsrt1nO9vVVYT6c 8cXlMOKH98vFz4WTpHp46A9Qef6Ceaw0tyEeHKZjklTreHL+whhAdKuW1jHRpItetjZU1dhNAjHG Sz8wA7wGPYp6PH5kQfzcPe5Psb29XFKglV8hheRjmhoo1FCEuljRlhkgoL0bckEue7jwJnlVscnY 5Qx4fJOk03R5fJtf/Dv/9m9+uP0zyEETyQahh1k9u2om0xVb9oL3R5o7ogdd/Z2jkSKWpdRxDdtf qq7ogl89nZocEwUWn3pl1GF/MpR/1woqRgT89NxfhhZheX75APDwQN5Uf2fZ1qOg+SPjT+BOO4cY iObT0Rj/YMafIyBtwbYB2txk8CJC/KMhngtCqeop03re2gJFeUkgE+W2A+eAFQf17EtkbrRrF1MZ gd29kNUJJqJ699MXxS5tr+TbdHpxfpYDjGTZ0x3acMshIoiR1/wHKtMfMgXVF96EFpfQrYjKFojr vUjjKLsywQkk4eoTAsVZ1pnsskEXLcdxuBSoMbuFCnOyeJRTotBWH8GsKiUKRK6Obnxr/EH5cLWQ JzrUFfqy+Fwgv8uwUCBDUV9ghQHpG0bD2zAJ8ipxBZatr5PNryPhH4lKeinv12/T+iWceXZNG0EU bELA0uv9YhdO7yCUgX8YuF5WBQr1Bq86197wOsO4MsdV9Y8oHgWtVfLu1XlYo8oQA7fdrkM8i3+x
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine1.mailspamprotection.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/AWVthXzRl0d2ohAQg3Y3m2b_cO0>
Subject: [netconf] question re: NACM, rfc8341
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: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:34:21 -0000

A quick question regarding NACM, rfc8341... say in a multi-tenant network,
and I'm admin for my "slice" and I have a "read-update" permission to one
node and a permission to execute <copy-config> protocol operation.  I just
updated a value of that one node in Running.
 
If I now execute <copy-config Running Startup>, will that result in that one
node's value being updated and all other values in Startup shall remain
unchanged, even if some are different from the current Running object's
values?
 
Thank you,
 
Stan Kmiec