IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 02 November 2016 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBF2129A2B; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 a05CRKVdwfjv; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA2F12947D; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:1d1d:32b6:9da:571d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:1d1d:32b6:9da:571d]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6175E61284; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 08:52:14 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1478073134; bh=Put1X85MABSXnEXrXPHg0FHSeZEO7jrqTk8EGK/TkG4=; h=From:Date:To; b=Zj3nXCBg9KeJQiQ4jSHE4k0FEthjF5I740rRR/4mPUOfHcbAE6L0sZhgEfKZTiCf2 7/yTc9BR+VkoCyo6x58zjIuwX4M38tTOhyuns7TVDCY57rFNL3HFcuNTqi5MFaXUc0 F/eTWC64VLh7CrSDMy8NYeY/tvmV6gfMjz7lLcFY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <D43EAEFE.87354%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:52:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CCC88E65-A698-4881-99A4-8F98451E11B4@nic.cz>
References: <147803154180.23820.9214684669050491573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D43E7868.8712E%acee@cisco.com> <7EEAE7E3-906D-4FED-B4BF-0BA44452E7E9@nostrum.com> <D43EAEFE.87354%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/NE3z_JXiprKgwCYicJgqv8E8Qtw>
Cc: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:52:17 -0000

> On 2 Nov 2016, at 01:45, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/1/16, 8:23 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Ben,
>>> 
>>> On 11/1/16, 4:19 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: 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-routing-cfg/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Should the reference to 6536. Be normative?
>>> 
>>> I certainly don’t think so. This is simply an informative reference
>>> describing the NETCONF access control model. The model in the draft is
>>> in
>>> no way dependent on this model.
>> 
>> I can't call myself a NETCONF expert--but if you use the model in this
>> draft over NETCONF, are there other access control models one might
>> realistically use? (Noting that NETCONF itself is a normative
>> reference.)
> 
> NETCONF probably should not be - I’ll confer with my co-author. Note that
> NETCONF and NETCONF ACM are normative references in RFC 7223.

You probably meant "are not normative references", which is the case in RFC 7223. It makes sense to keep it this way for data modelling work - securing access to data is a protocol issue. Simple implementations may not need the granularity of NACM, and can instead allow access only to a "root" user.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email