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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 2 Nov 2016, at 6:21, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

>
> On 11/2/16, 3:52 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On 2 Nov 2016, at 01:45, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/1/16, 8:23 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/16, 4:19 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> 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.
>
> Yes - that’s what I meant. I’d vote to make them both informative as in
> RFC 7223 - especially with the trend to use YANG with different transport
> protocols.

Based on the discussion so far, I'm okay with them staying informational.

Thanks!

Ben.