Return-Path: <0100016d3f864f24-aeab9f9b-fd8f-4688-89ba-a66f7571c943-000000@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 7C762120801 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 4uZbmr3ZFVpx for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF52B120059 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1568728830; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=laWz+4bGDPvI9NHNsFdqhhYscUKIWR4Z3hwoo6nZ11g=; b=MI2h3EmcCGHpQ3QTThHr951uNEKUpxlvd9ZsKD/k0zzNtZbIYV2kVqRqPELBjVRG cXuf0PZMhwnzhTVZWi6jJZj7IgZJIWZSICcDc+Abr15wuObQn5gn/30zaC5hiH0xYD3 tLyA3MBZ45lJb/fsAIgbIxl/35HBXjLwoxlIlcwI= From: Kent Watsen Message-ID: <0100016d3f864f24-aeab9f9b-fd8f-4688-89ba-a66f7571c943-000000@email.amazonses.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7D97B06-7D48-48E5-B28B-D4D3A12D2E21" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:00:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20190916.212526.427039138127777720.mbj@tail-f.com> Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" To: Martin Bjorklund References: <0100016d18b462b3-38420cd3-1259-47ea-aa1b-f250a8238c9b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190910.090803.448863675820254782.mbj@tail-f.com> <0100016d3aca212d-1791071e-66b5-4730-9cf2-6b4f16217d21-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190916.212526.427039138127777720.mbj@tail-f.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.09.17-54.240.8.88 Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES Archived-At: Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: NETCONF WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:00:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E7D97B06-7D48-48E5-B28B-D4D3A12D2E21 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> Do you mean to add to the draft a new section called something like >> "Authorization" that mimics what's in the SN draft regarding, e.g., >> NACM? >=20 > No I mean that when the device generates a notification, NACM needs a > user name to find the access control rules. What is the user name > with this new protocol? Now I understand. There isn't a set answer for this yet. Two = approaches: 1) We could claim that it is the "system" that is the publisher = (effectively no NACM) 2) We could have an explicit field for the "send as" user. (default to = "system"?) >> This draft doesn't assume anything about the server (if this is a >> valid assumption is discussed below) and, presumably, this assumption >> may be a common. So maybe ietf-http-client should also define a >> feature statement for the new "path" leaf, thus servers have an easy >> way to turn it on. It would be mandatory false, with the description >> statement indicating that it is only needed for some protocols. >> Alternatively, this draft could augment in a "path" leaf into the >> "http-params" section, or define a new section for just the path. >> Thoughts? >=20 > I prefer the latter. I think the 'path' leaf will not be very common > whe the http-client grouping is used. Sure, and by "latter", do you mean a) augment in a "path" leaf into the "http-params" section, or b) define a new section for just the path? > I'm fine with this being a new "protocol", not RESTCONF. Okay. Kent --Apple-Mail=_E7D97B06-7D48-48E5-B28B-D4D3A12D2E21 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Do you mean to add to = the draft a new section called something like
"Authorization" that mimics what's in the SN draft regarding, = e.g.,
NACM?

No I = mean that when the device generates a notification, NACM needs a
user name to find the access control rules.  What is the = user name
with this new protocol?

Now I = understand.   There isn't a set answer for this yet.   Two = approaches:

1) We could claim that = it is the "system" that is the publisher (effectively no = NACM)
2) We could have an explicit field for the "send as" = user.  (default to "system"?)

This = draft doesn't assume anything about the server (if this is a
valid assumption is discussed below) and, presumably, this = assumption
may be a common.  So maybe = ietf-http-client should also define a
feature statement = for the new "path" leaf, thus servers have an easy
way to = turn it on.  It would be mandatory false, with the description
statement indicating that it is only needed for some = protocols.
Alternatively, this draft could augment in a = "path" leaf into the
"http-params" section, or define a = new section for just the path.
Thoughts?

I prefer the latter.  I = think the 'path' leaf will not be very common
whe the = http-client grouping is used.


Sure, and by "latter", do you mean a) augment in a = "path" leaf into the
"http-params" section, or b) define a new = section for just the path?



I'm fine with this being a new "protocol", = not RESTCONF.

Okay.



Kent


= --Apple-Mail=_E7D97B06-7D48-48E5-B28B-D4D3A12D2E21--