[netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 16:05 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, netmod@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151568672387.29482.1503781577338806147.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:05:23 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-r4_pmTHbLemSL2auv0cUGJXSno>
Subject: [netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'm a little confused with some text in
the draft and appreciate Benoit working with the authors to clarify text around
these points.  This was previously a discuss, but the explanations provided
were helpful and the tweaks discussed are appreciated.

Original questions from discuss:

1. The introductions says,
"This architectural framework identifies a set of conceptual datastores but
   it does not mandate that all network management protocols expose all
   these conceptual datastores.  This architecture is agnostic with
   regard to the encoding used by network management protocols."

As such, the data stores could be exposed for some implementations, using
whatever network management protocol (likely NetCONF or RESTCONF).  If this is
the case, why doesn't at least some of the security considerations template
apply for at least secure transport?

2. Section 5.3.4 - Is there any integrity protection on the origin information?
 If not, can it be added or is there a good reason why it’s not possible?  I
realize these are conceptual models that may or may not be exposed, but if
exposed and used, wouldn’t some integrity protection on this be helpful?

Thanks in advance!

[netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draf… Kathleen Moriarty