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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 14 March 2018 13:29 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 8415012AF84; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 JREVnshG9lPu; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E6312711B; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3712; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521034144; x=1522243744; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=OHlZ0ewEoxtzAL0LPabVmmn7D1Ifx8wltLBTmbmJ77w=; b=ZZ6G3HiLM4sHutnMKEBA1xv5e5dC4XsLT3GrXiWLrcPnJku5i5sArmdU R/InVXHMtHI8D2Yw12a6MD68LjhHwXNnXF9XS492Cs6GDZAXr9DSAkKXh jlur7b7XcjWY2ztjRqr2NR1q0Fn7RXoeH+FyUw9nqdhTqj7Xc6qyKp/ER 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DYAABXI6la/4QNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNQZXAoCo1gjXSCA4EWlDaCEwojhG4CgyYhNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJ?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUlAQEBAwF3AgULAgEIDgcDDAEhMiUCBA4FCIUICA+uSIhiggcFhSyCFIFVh?= =?us-ascii?q?HSDHgKHUASOLowpCQKGQ4MOhwaBbYdKhTSJe4cqAhETAYErAR44gVJwFRmCZJB?= =?us-ascii?q?vd4xEKoEHgRgBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,470,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="83887102"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2018 13:28:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (xch-rtp-009.cisco.com [64.101.220.149]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2EDSwk3011179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:28:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:28:57 -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, 14 Mar 2018 09:28:57 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10
Thread-Index: AQHTuiDhP4UPxNeFY0CSJ8tCCoPN1aPM98TAgAK21ACAAAhYEA==
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:28:57 +0000
Message-ID: <379cfb19a5c64753a067a2ae42f65a82@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <DA8A1569-826D-4744-B780-90CDA064D0BD@juniper.net> <f9096b71-26b7-eda3-6ddc-2983b693a2f5@cisco.com> <8d4f4193c6694fe387d284d7b74c9b09@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180314.093900.1449292548839197417.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180314.093900.1449292548839197417.mbj@tail-f.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: [10.118.56.228]
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/kehqwd1ph3h4aGu08lBC80zQDM0>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:29:05 -0000

Hi Martin,

> From: Martin Bjorklund, March 14, 2018 4:39 AM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > From: Robert Wilton -X, March 12, 2018 12:41 PM
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some minor comments on this draft.  I've not read/reviewed all of it
> > > yet, so some more comments may follow.  But generally I am
> > > supportive of publishing this draft.
> >
> > Thanks Robert.
> >
> > I have incorporated tweaks as-per below.  These updates can be seen
> > within the working draft -v11 at:
> > https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc5277bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-netcon
> > f-subscribed-notifications-11.txt
> >
> > >    I'm happy to leave it to the authors discretion on whether and
> > > how  they want to address these.
> > >
> > > 1. I noted that neither the title nor abstract mention YANG or
> > > network configuration.  Nor do they mention that they define a YANG
> > > data model.
> >
> > This is true, and I think ok.  Just like RFC-5277, it is possible to
> > subscribe to non-YANG streams.
> 
> Perhaps "A YANG Data Model for Event Stream Subscriptions"?
> 
> Or something along these lines in the abstract.
> 
> Even though the streams may not be YANG-defined, the subscription
> mechanism is YANG based.

Ok.   I made the first sentence of the abstract:
"This document defines capabilities, operations, and a YANG Data Model for the customized establishment of subscriptions upon a publisher's event streams."
 
> [...]
> 
> > > - State change notification => "Subscription state change
> > > - notifications"?
> >
> > Every time "state change notification" is used, the word subscription
> > is easily matched up.  So it seems to me to be more readable to use a
> > shorter term versus a longer one.
> 
> I think that in most cases you are right.  But I suggest you clarify this the first
> time the term is used, in 1.1:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    o  state change notifications (e.g., publisher driven suspension,
>       parameter modification)
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    o  subscription state change notifications (e.g., publisher driven
>       suspension, parameter modification)

Done

> [...]
> 
> > > I wasn't sure how this tied in with YANG push where a client may not
> > > have access to read some nodes.  In that case, nodes that can't be
> > > read are left out (e.g. like a NETCONF GET request).  I know that
> > > YANG push covers this is more detail, but didn't know whether this
> > > paragraph correctly stands on its own?
> >
> > Current paragraph is correct.  The idea is you shouldn't allow someone
> > to subscribe to a stream containing any content they are not allowed
> > to see.  Access control is to the stream rather than the content.
> 
> But it seems that YANG push filters out the nodes that you don't have access
> to.

Yes.  For subscriptions to datastores, YANG push filters out data nodes for which the receiver has no access (just like a Get)    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).   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