Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base

Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si> Mon, 30 January 2023 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
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 581C1C152574 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:07:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mg-soft.si
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DLANJ8XzfCXK for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from galileo.mg-soft.si (gate.mg-soft.si [212.30.73.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A824C14F736 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 02:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.222] (tp-x61t.mg-soft.si [10.0.0.222]) by galileo.mg-soft.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CBAC41D787; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:07:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 galileo.mg-soft.si 90CBAC41D787
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg-soft.si; s=default; t=1675073251; bh=03kArn8N71SeANZgQWMa/+0jY9yS4/Nq0LQoKromJ/Y=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=FiPnU9oJSBVZi0ZrI4U3r68CXuZrmHVNe77ph5Mqob7uUO+U8YV/KvP/UVuCfh+kh w+/P8pXKgIGgBSrxmzBs49Pmc1QAFvQKYzJeJVs5QzkUroxWM8MIMtNQ6sslNvPKp5 s8hreyCryajMOd85ExP0ss/XWCTRitSfJ0x1/EThvRtltceebk7y3ge+cdO/IrFwJe 7X5F/6mkDotxEUaBPCBfOnuWuopuogaJ2rv91Nzs4U9pmHr+vhfJIcCKlJfUAavWU0 zpKOkRf/jOQbK74O2RSXqyA/GoRkobkC56TI64Bf2TR31iGNVV5ZFZ7n5ZC5+wtRLx nyyc1apWUSBlQ==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------kly0CKnE00yutudvVMs0YkQG"
Message-ID: <5d09aa66-d0fa-719c-a00e-590aff8202fd@mg-soft.si>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:07:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <bb5a08c8399f4b358b56b66f7959b37c@huawei.com> <368f8c81-a67b-4ca0-0a61-963acd54b043@mg-soft.si> <54933ec7333e44e4adf5dd2cf1dc22db@huawei.com>
From: Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
In-Reply-To: <54933ec7333e44e4adf5dd2cf1dc22db@huawei.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/k9hDTETy3f6Z6I7b0SG41mZfcjU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:07:39 -0000

On 30/01/2023 10:19, Italo Busi wrote:
>
> Yes, the intention is not to change the semantic of bar but to 
> introduce a more “restricted” identity from which bar could be derived
>
> Something like introducing an identity for italian-car in between car 
> and Ferrari identities
>

I understand your intention. I do not understand the intention behind 
text in RFC 7950, however.

My clarification request was aimed at RFC 7950 authors and whether a 
revision like this could be considered as not changing the semantics of 
the original identity definition because:

    Otherwise, if the semantics of any previous definition are changed
    (i.e., if a non-editorial change is made to any definition other than
    those specifically allowed above), then this MUST be achieved by a
    new definition with a new identifier.

So, RFC authors: Is "NEWB:bar" definition semantically equivalent to 
"OLD:bar" definition?

Jernej

> Italo
>
> *From:* Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
> *Sent:* lunedì 30 gennaio 2023 08:51
> *To:* Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>; netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] Changing an identity base
>
> On 27/01/2023 17:54, Italo Busi wrote:
>
>     According to section 11 of RFC7950, the following change is
>     considered BC:
>
>        o  A "base" statement may be added to an "identity" statement.
>
>     Since, as explained in section 7.18.2 of RFC7950, the derivation
>     of identities is transitive, my understanding is that replacing a
>     "base" statement with new  "base" statement which is derived from
>     the previous one is also a BC change.
>
>     Considering the example below, the NEW (A) change is BC according
>     to section 11 of RFC7950. However, NEW (B) is equivalent to NEW
>     (A), since the new baz is derived from foo, and therefore it is
>     also a BC change.
>
>     Is my understanding correct?
>
>
> I'd like a clarification regarding this as well.  Is "NEWB:bar" 
> definition semantically equivalent to "OLD:bar" definition?
>
> Jernej
>
>
>     Thanks, Italo
>
>     OLD
>
>     identity foo {}
>
>     identity bar {
>
>       base foo;
>
>     }
>
>     NEW (A)
>
>     identity foo {}
>
>     identity baz {
>
>       base foo
>
>     }
>
>     identity bar {
>
>       base foo;
>
>       base baz;
>
>     }
>
>     NEW (B)
>
>     identity foo {}
>
>     identity baz {
>
>       base foo
>
>     }
>
>     identity bar {
>
>       base baz;
>
>     }
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     netmod mailing list
>
>     netmod@ietf.org
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>