Re: [Netconf] [SPAM?] RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 22 March 2018 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 7F2A912D7F1 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 gW6yYGf9UjuL for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A6ED12D72F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2606; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521677391; x=1522886991; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=KiFllRwrJs9+Ru6spnbOUzeZCA8vfTcfF1aBabtJZBA=; b=KtRBNh+aqTt1Gpuc+u4GsD4nCli3PcZqqe+Kxguq+UQ4uJLQKgeaOffJ XXjQiRqEKhSn+eKpEZlz3/UXoyBG0nPo1hsBDbc0OH0dB1cJMttrGtYzD nzGANiSrb7rYVpuBlQPq+rDdJdKj4A94Ep3hRaFhXf47c87YzBuWqKQmZ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ARAQDP87Ja/4ENJK1dDgsBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDPWFwKAqLUY0MgXGBEJMoggkLGAuEFkwCg1YhNBgBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQJrKIUlAQEBAwEBASVHCQcHBAIBCBEEAQEBDRoHJwsUCQgCBAESCIR?= =?us-ascii?q?+CA+uCzWIRIF2BYdDgVNAgQ6DCoMTAQGBS4VrA4x3i0QJAo8qgU2La4dDiEw?= =?us-ascii?q?CERMBgSUBHDiBUnAVOoF+RYIcBRiNXTlwjmGBFgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,341,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="368995744"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2018 00:09:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2M09oCn020506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:09:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:09:49 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:09:49 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>, "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] [SPAM?] RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10
Thread-Index: AQHTwXIXhbuVHIS+50iwO/JjX2pGuw==
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:09:49 +0000
Message-ID: <edaada08b6f144af9a8c26d8409b052c@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <8d4f4193c6694fe387d284d7b74c9b09@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180314.093900.1449292548839197417.mbj@tail-f.com> <379cfb19a5c64753a067a2ae42f65a82@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180314.145841.72164558423482638.mbj@tail-f.com> <9b8cf6b9e6114e00800525db71505023@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CABCOCHSzcFg81LZPRhV5toN2x48AqbPk8CCt4Y-4B_GT1OrHkg@mail.gmail.com> <041f01d3be9f$c73a2370$55ae6a50$@clemm.org> <3cf17c80-ec49-b134-b034-4f71b0c0457a@alumni.stanford.edu> <AM3PR07MB11242B2E87902913D512D07D9BD40@AM3PR07MB1124.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM3PR07MB11242B2E87902913D512D07D9BD40@AM3PR07MB1124.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.71.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/C9W3SOIb_p0HwLLyaG1rHgEqTy8>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [SPAM?] RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10
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, 22 Mar 2018 00:09:53 -0000

At this point, the process for maintaining synchronization of authorization rules in a distributed  environment is not in the scope of this draft.  It seems like a general topic beyond subscriptions.   

That said, it would be great if a publisher subscribed the authorization rules on the centralized server -> this would result in a push of permission changes as they occur :-).

Eric

> From: Sterne, Jason, March 19, 2018 8:54 AM
> 
> About "hooks between NACM...".  That may be possible in a system where
> NACM rules/processing and subscription handling are integrated (i.e. on the
> same box), but what if authorization rules are located on a remote TACACS+
> or RADIUS server ?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> > Presuhn
> > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:16 PM
> > To: netconf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] [SPAM?] RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > On 3/18/2018 2:59 AM, alex@clemm.org wrote:
> > > Yes.  Conceptually, it is cleanest to apply the filter on the event
> > > contents with each update.  At the same time, in the interest of
> > > performance, Andy and others have raised the issue of performance
> > > penalty if every update has to be subjected to a filter.  One option
> > > is for an implementation to simply reject a subscription if there is
> > > a chance that it might contain information that would have to be
> > > filtered (i.e. do the NACM check at the time the subscription is
> > > created), and in case of NACM changes later that might affect
> > > subscriptions, to terminate the subscription (and let users resubscribe).
> >
> > This would increase the cost of NACM configuration changes (probably
> > not a big deal, but it means hooks between NACM and the notification
> > subsystem are needed so NACM would be able to let the notification
> > stuff know it needs to re-evaluate some of its subscriptions) and
> > would potentially leak information to other users about the fact that
> > the security administrator is making NACM configuration changes, even
> > if nothing is happening that would otherwise expose the fact that the
> > change has taken place.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf