Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Bjorklund" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 6:46 PM
> 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:23:23PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We have always said no, but the reasoning is unclear.  What are
> the
> > > > specific objections and is there anyway to alleviate them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If editing of all configuration can be done with a single edit-data
> > > (or edit-config) operation, you simplify the world and you enable
> > > generic implementations.
> > >
> > > Once you build silos of data that can only be manipulated with
> special
> > > purpose operations, you say goodbye to the idea of generic client
> > > libraries.
> >
> > And you can no longer create all required config in one transaction;
> > you have to split it into sending multiple special-purpose actions.
> > Perhaps also in a certain order, that you have to figure out somehow,
> > since config might have refererences to other partf of the config
> > etc.
> >
> > You can no longer restore a backup with just a copy-config.
> 
> Which is exactly what I have seen customers - think military - do.
> 
> Security-related information - userid, passwords, second factor , ...-
> MUST NOT be backed up like everything else - special procedures -
> authentication, encryption -  must be used.

Agreed!  BUT, then it should not be modelled as configuration, imo.

And the current model already handles this case with "hidden" keys.




/martin

> 
> This is security - it matters.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > So I don't think the reasoning is unclear at all.
> >
> > /martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
>