Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-05

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 17 June 2014 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170DF1A0390 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 B1b1ttbSZET5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7172F1A0387 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1982; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403013000; x=1404222600; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XAHI4zSYLRCq7kiLFL3XHcA82RLx1JUBeG6qHWb5G70=; b=hlXc9NcKjadakRzmXxcL+P0qWV1FeGrrX0PgnHWFTAtNSwswampIhMuq Ms4tbqZI7b9etEY6kWXCZWjIv2luEUiktRAqlrAbBUA9ea8hi5lzc89ds bt9RoPAGmnR1Vspe+gIX7dHEGN4qas3gqImOG1ko7myiDFk7GEPejA9W0 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikGAN5GoFOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABahyWnEwEBAQEBAQUBmSYBgSN1hAMBAQEEIxVAARALEAEEAQEDAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBPQgGAQwBBQIBAYg+rWSeNReBKoQ5iRMHgneBTAEDmkOGeoxeg0I7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,494,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="84565092"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2014 13:49:58 +0000
Received: from [10.149.0.180] (dhcp-10-149-0-180.cisco.com [10.149.0.180]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5HDnwlG021627; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:49:58 GMT
Message-ID: <53A04786.8060902@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:49:58 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <14507864.1402339265349.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <14507864.1402339265349.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/k-p-BCErUjvaKXRFURiu4vqpPoo
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg@tools.ietf.org, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-05
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:50:09 -0000

Dear authors, document shepherd,

Should Randy's point be discussed in this document?

Regards, Benoit
> Hi -
>
>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>> Sent: Jun 7, 2014 12:02 AM
>> To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg@tools.ietf.org, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-05
> ...
>> Concerning "designed to": The data model has been designed to cover
>> everything that the SNMP configuration models describe. It allows an
>> implementation that supports both configuration via NETCONF and
>> configuration via SNMP. The details are discussed in section 3.2.
> When SNMP is used to change the value of an
> instance of vacmGroupName in the vacmSecurityToGroupTable,
> some side-effects will need to happen in the netconf datastores,
> due to the decision to model the information differently.
> I know this has come up before, but it's unclear to me what
> needs to happen on the netconf server side in a couple
> of specific cases:
>
> (1) If the vacmGroupName has a value that hasn't been seen before,
> a "group" obviously needs to be created as a side-effect in
> netconf land.  What's less obvious is what happens to the
> old "group" in the case where no other entries in the
> vacmSecurityToGroupTable still have that particular value
> for vacmGroupName.  Is it to be automagically deleted
> because the security-model's min-elements constrainted
> would otherwise be violated?
>
> (2) Likewise, when the value of the StorageType of an entry
> in vacmSecurityToGroupTable is modified from nonVolatile
> to volatile, does similar "garbage collection" have
> to happen as a side-effect?
>
> (3) When the entry in vacmSecurityToGroupTable is volatile,
> and some (but not all) of the corresponding vacmAccessTable
> entries are nonVolatile, what happens in the netconf datastores?
>
> Randy
> .
>