IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-11.txt

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 40AB21A0475 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:58:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9ufoH3RMYE1g for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [109.74.15.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22301A0503 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [193.12.32.88]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B387537C1D8; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:58:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:58:22 +0100
Message-Id: <20140206.215822.456617131.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: yiya@cisco.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF194B57.212B0%yiya@cisco.com>
References: <20140206134518.GD49118@elstar.local> <20140206.150524.1309921502695133115.mbj@tail-f.com> <CF194B57.212B0%yiya@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5rc2 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-11.txt
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:58:27 -0000

Hi,

"Yi Yang (yiya)" <yiya@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> One issue is for "feature local-users", as specified in section 3.5.1 and
> 3.5.2, it indicates support of public-key-based AND password-based
> authentication for local users. But what if only public-key-based is
> supported, or vice versa? How would client discover it?

public-key is mandatory to support according to RFC 4252, so it makes
sense to not have a special feature for it.

I don't think it's common with systems that don't support passwords;
of course the operator can choose to not use them, as already haas
been stated.


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email