Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with DISCUSS)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 BD8AF130F08 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 qm7d5If-mQKQ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE91D130F05 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id j4-v6so4886020ljc.12 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c2snOwmX9es8qS2OmWIkdO059cHoAdhCrggrEUFPAzs=; b=sc2m4rxcdYlN+S928SrnCuKzbzMSJOmloTXQMoQoGQHF3Zt0cTBbZ9xZ4TJv3JMOvr yvRuPgPYTDsFAViU6/L1NKE3V6S5mIZKVCHjyTQuuCkaLQpH4vw8sMFkZTOYNS8LQf3h CwcWA0YUwUmK17LCNTpOd3S0s/W3gK3PzquILzXeko+pPaJufdWxjuGuS/ntMVzhWSOV Ot4YgvoqlHd81NbpjGNNmRj/uGjFnkplEBD/J0cB4LOxb6lQGLjswopMf5NrQFF7JSyI IaQi2TouD2xdVBCjupXiSHXtj5hC/mGdcYg1ohxbKtxTXAxuudS2vKD1e8VnrQ71kN+T 7HnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c2snOwmX9es8qS2OmWIkdO059cHoAdhCrggrEUFPAzs=; b=q1D/j3mwkRgJFVzT8W19JRiAoy3KfnDZpYPAf4JIDw2bczX0CJxzINe+SUoqkBSjmQ qgVyoTSoBtx/rUDVMSKhOE0O1g9fg0Kj+cgDB2EJ47p0ObMH6W3+LdKhqQMBYuiwzs2f Pk5X1RVeKAdkQNFpSP82OFwm2FJ+rRiPuyMiPl9aVj6yq/EEe8QwXFv8m1DW/Auaurmi yN0YzvnaZn9gLJZxJFQHTiSjQJn8OZFDpMOrUs5tOs0QNSTqRL/o9K82PvWOo1ghAg6g PFsHiA+/a8xMDNdYfOrBZUCdXmOBpDuxu3bA6kHbjCG4tPtuBFUYn6FP8m2NT/OgpYhX 2ZTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogRCockbT8eHd8A40Y4Y4Ljz2shdrShVO9kn9rZoXSyNIqtTYBU p9PVXX5XxdqFDHcrNC8qj456zpuEo51Cf+l9uMTWog==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63YyLmz1dDygu7nDUzvMd8dHy7fyypB2KBBDlVtL+zME9mrIM83RLYoiSDylt5198RWESm6qHty4dNB/HpNw7k=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7017:: with SMTP id l23-v6mr20501297ljc.160.1539178444840; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153914105176.10625.9957580509164313779.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20181010.143257.2013021260712498361.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181010.143257.2013021260712498361.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:33:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMofmqzptj_w-CH+0TSMXj1jT0dE4KP4r2eJqijSsYQxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: mbj@tail-f.com
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, joelja@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000737fab0577dfe8b2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nlk77lcFNR4mkGkQq9RMues9ozM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Oct 2018 13:34:14 -0000

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:32 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: Discuss
> >
> > 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-schema-mount/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Rich version of this review at:
> > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3506
> >
> >
> >
> > DETAIL
> > S 4.
> > >
> > >      It is worth emphasizing that the nodes specified in
> > >      "parent-reference" leaf-list are available in the mounted schema
> only
> > >      for XPath evaluations.  In particular, they cannot be accessed
> there
> > >      via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or
> > >      RESTCONF [RFC8040].
> >
> > What are the security implications of this XPath reference outside the
> > mount jail? Specifically, how does it interact with the access control
> > for the enclosing module.
>
> There is no such interaction, since access control comes into play
> when some external entity accesses the data through some management
> protocol, and the nodes from the "parent-reference" expressions cannot
> be accessed via management protocols.
>
> The last sentence of the quoted paragraph was supposed to make this
> clear, but it seems we might need some additional explanation?
>

Yes, I think so. I guess I'm not clear on what the XPath expressions are
for if they
can't be accessed via the management protocols. How can they be used?

-Ekr


>
>
> /martin
>