[Netconf] key management YANG models in rtgwg

Ing-Wher Chen <ing-wher.chen@ericsson.com> Thu, 23 July 2015 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ing-wher.chen@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851A01A0390 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 xZ_2eb6LQsZJ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A531A0387 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f794d6d000001dfb-ed-55b09bc6ff2b
Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9D.3B.07675.6CB90B55; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:46:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:23 -0400
From: Ing-Wher Chen <ing-wher.chen@ericsson.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: key management YANG models in rtgwg
Thread-Index: AdDFWbHJHo1KRWpVQWKHJHM/jRlbPg==
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:10:23 +0000
Message-ID: <BF6E0BD839774345977891C597F8B50C212E928A@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlO6x2RtCDWYu0bOYuuk2qwOjx5Il P5kCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mtp/XGUr2MxTMefocrYGxu1cXYycHBICJhJ7H71jhLDFJC7c W8/WxcjFISRwlFHi3My3LBDOckaJ6Q2TWUCq2AQMJDZ83MIEYosIaEo0zvrACmILC+hIHHly hBUibigxb8E2RghbT2LZuglsIDaLgKpE09dfYHFeAV+JtgP9YPWMQJu/n1oDNpNZQFzi1pP5 TBAXCUgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhK0kMWnpOVaIeh2JBbs/sUHY2hLLFr5mhpgvKHFy5hOWCYzC s5CMnYWkZRaSlllIWhYwsqxi5CgtTi3LTTcy3MQIDOVjEmyOOxgXfLI8xCjAwajEw5sgtCFU iDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjivtF9eqJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQZGETHfL4e3F3YI rnM1u6Jz7sEdxcjZFtEO87YwLV3013B9sFMNi0bt+po7f8uTH72Pfz5hxZPjbL2TlXaGzJm7 xE1Uq/SvV6PqK4tbuyYwSb0Kfbl6XXb+pZ7Z3sEXeCpPtfY7XNXlO2r18tS7p7uqRE54bDn+ gXf/Ee4cCZvK+e+ibFmE5M18lFiKMxINtZiLihMBs3GlcUYCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/K8TFkFUk29g6e-MEBIbRrVtL4z8>
Subject: [Netconf] key management YANG models in rtgwg
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 23 Jul 2015 15:10:31 -0000

Hello,

The discussion of modeling of key chains came up during the presentation of
presentation of <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-server-model/>
at the netconf working group meeting on Jul. 23, 2015.  Here's a bit more background
on the topic of key management YANG models.

Currently, there are two key management YANG models being debated in rtgwg.

There is a key-table YANG model based on RFC 7210.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-key-table-yang/>
This key-table YANG model is based on the symmetric key table that the
KARP working group defined in RFC 7210 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7210/>.
This table is intended to be a generic key database, capable of supporting
different protocols.  I believe the KARP working group concluded after
publishing RFC 7210.  <http://ietf.org/wg/concluded/karp.html>

The second model proposed in rtgwg is the key-chain YANG model.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-rtg-yang-key-chain/>
This key-chain model is a different view of, and in my opinion,  a subset of
the key-table YANG model above.

Both key management YANG models above only address symmetric keys,
which are not the same as the asymmetric keys described in
draft-ietf-netconf-server-model-07, Appendix A.1.
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-server-model-07#appendix-A.1>
(This is not to say that a single key management model should manage 
both symmetric and asymmetric keys, or that each type of key requires
its own key management model.)

Thanks,
Helen