Re: [netconf] Latest ietf-netconf-server draft and related modules

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Fri, 02 April 2021 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <01000178942e1633-ed64aaba-cc99-4893-989d-890bbd202ca5-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 841213A2197 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 IqLbmgd2oHes for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD7C53A2193 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1617393751; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=+p3FbKgqCHzM5vrJSodwBe0YyhyTwVkQ8VNqdz//ajc=; b=YVCWd1HSDB7mu1Hw7ZU1kTKaZp8oXdY6IxJ/xwbTV0eXMc6xuNRebftXZ2X7JCyQ u72FqpG4UiEnvwS6U7wjyiX5U/NgCm7CN1Hv/1dlUuVgSfL/lhanhFvgtlLdxskKQKx YxcKNk0P93/bhl8fBclOZ3pyHwrOHAlHN89rZgsQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <5303-60677180-31-62233d80@261934540>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 20:02:31 +0000
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <01000178942e1633-ed64aaba-cc99-4893-989d-890bbd202ca5-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <5303-60677180-31-62233d80@261934540>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Michal_Va=C5=A1ko?= <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.04.02-54.240.48.94
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JDZANwWUQ38VmtYsAYimuaVBR3k>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Latest ietf-netconf-server draft and related modules
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, 02 Apr 2021 20:02:36 -0000

Hi Michal,


> firstly I am sorry, somehow I missed this reply, my bad :(

No worries!  :)


>>> I had a chance to look at these modules again and have 2 questions regarding some recent changes.
>>> 
>>> - ietf-ssh-server, ssh-server-grouping/client-authentication/supported-authentication-methods> 
>>> Since the "other" leaf-list was removed there is no way to support some other methods than those specified. I am not sure whether this was the intention and if so, what is the reason for it? If nothing else, we support "interactive" authentication method but there are some others that I see no reason why they could not be used.
>> 
>> It took me a bit to determine that this change happened in ssh-client-server-18.
>> 
>> The motivation behind the change was to align the values with those defined in RFCs 4252 and 4250.
>> 
>> You mention an “interactive” and “some other” methods - where are they defined?
> 
> That is a good question. It seems no other methods are standardized but that does not mean they are not used.

What change are you hoping to see?  Is there anyway that such changes could be augmented in, or must they be in the base module?



>>> For a robust and extendible solution, why not use an identityref leaf-list with all the methods as identities? One could then simply add new ones with specific "if-feature" statements.
>> 
>> An identityref seems reasonable, could you propose a snippet of YANG for it?
>> 
>> That said, it seems equally possible for a future module to augment-in a new leaf under the "supported-authentication-methods” container...
> 
> Right, that would solve the problem, too. So you can keep it the way it is, up to you which solution you prefer. Not sure why I did not think of augments first but identityrefs. But identityrefs are much more general so the implementation should probably depend on whether these authentication methods are to be used only for this single purpose or not.

Either way is fine with me.  As the module is in WGLC currently, it would be good if others could express an option...



>>> - ietf-netconf-server, grouping netconf-server-grouping/client-identity-mappings
>>> 
>>> The "if-feature" on this container is strange. The practical problem is that if one wants to support certificates only for TLS, both one of the TLS features and "ssh-x509-certs" must be enabled. This then results in the container being defined for both SSH and TLS so there is no way to support it only for TLS or SSH.
>> 
>> Yes, granular features would be nice.  This issue is tracked here: https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/82 <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/82>.  A possible fix would be to enable features on a per-XPath basis, perhaps using the “node-tags” draft going on in NETMOD.   Do you have a proposal?
>> 
>> BTW, shouldn’t the “if-feature” statement have an “or” (not an “and”) between the two major expressions?
> 
> Yes, I think "or" fits much better. I just was not sure whether there is not a specific reason why "and" was chosen.

OLD:        "(tls-listen or tls-call-home) and (sshcmn:ssh-x509-certs)”;
NEW:        "tls-listen or tls-call-home or sshcmn:ssh-x509-certs";

But what about your original question, are you okay with consuming modules augmenting-in use-specific if-feature statements? 


K.