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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Rohit,

 

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).  

 

--- Alex

 

From: Rohit R Ranade <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 9:59 PM
To: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>; Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: [SPAM?] RE: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10

 

hi all, 

If user has permission to read on parent but not child, and if user has
subscription filter on parent, the user should be able to get changes on
parent ONLY even if both parent and child were modified.. 
So I feel nacm rules need to be applied at the time of generating push
updates..user should not get any updates if only child is updated.. this
will be my expectation as an user..



From:Andy Bierman

To:Eric Voit (evoit),

Cc:[e-mail],[e-mail],netco
[e-mail],

Date:2018-03-14 22:23:10

Subject:Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

(reducing to the single open item, and adding Andy + Alex to the "to")

> From: Martin Bjorklund, March 14, 2018 9:59 AM
>
> Hi,
>
> "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > But for
> > subscription to event streams, it is assumed that any event records
> > placed on a stream permitted for that receiver is authorized content
> > (just like RFC-5277).
>
> Hmm.  This is not how it is defined in RFC 5277:

Agree.   I should not have said "just like 5277".   More below.

>    After generation of the <notification> element, access control is
>    applied by the server.  If a session does not have permission to
>    receive the <notification>, then it is discarded for that session,
>    and processing of the internal event is completed for that session.
>
> Also, NACM is designed to drop notifications that the client doesn't have
> access to.

A few years ago during early discussions, Alex and I remember Andy asking
that per receiver access control not be applied to traffic coming out of a
stream.    We took that to mean that a receiver should get all the event
records on a stream, without any per-notification filtering.  This is what
drove the current text.

Per RFC-6536, section 3.4.6., the outgoing <notification> authorization is
able to look at the notification event type, and if a receiver is authorized
to receive the notification event type, then it is also authorized to
receive any data it contains.

Reconsidering this, perhaps Alex and I interpreted Andy's intent wrong.  And
Andy actually requested the current event type behavior which NACM can
currently perform on the RFC-5277 NETCONF event stream, but no other
filtering of event records beyond that.

 

I think the notification event type filtering is still applicable.

 

I remember some discussions about applying NACM to YANG Push subscriptions.

Of course the client needs permission to receive <push-update> events.

The issue for YP is that this is the only access control provided.

 

In order to support NACM for the contents of <push-update> events, the
client

MUST have permission to read every data node specified in the filters for

a subscription. This is checked when the subscription is configured or
activated.

If a filter-ref filter is changed so this is no longer true, then the server
MUST

suspend or terminate the subscription.

 

IMO even this is quite an implementation burden, but less than having the

server check NACM rules for every descendant node of every edited node for
every

<push-update>.

 

 

If that is the case, and this capability is desired by the WG, Alex and I
would be happy to replicate the relevant text from RFC-5277 section 3.2 to
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications to cover this.

Thanks,
Eric

 

Andy

 


> > Effects like this are why the two drafts, as well as the YANG model
> > targets and filters for datastores and to streams have been separated.
> >
> > > Your statement:
> > >
> > >   Access control is to the stream rather than the content.
> > >
> > > seems to imply that in order to subscribe to changes to the
> > > datastore, you need full access to all nodes covered by the filter.
> >
> > As a stream and a datastore are different, hopefully my comment above
> > clears this up.
> >
> > Eric
> > > /martin
>
>
> /martin