IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] NMDA RPC/action validation

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Wed, 06 May 2020 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 BCA603A0538 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 02:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 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, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.177, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=PN186U7e; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=thhizTYB
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 Wv7_yd7PK_ah for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 02:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34DC63A0486 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 02:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F1C5C0060; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 May 2020 05:12:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= Mdw75dKHh8ZBU7Gne54/wtMw8Oqfk8yUjVv/GGyJw2c=; b=PN186U7exrheOYFs BwjmA0c5wQPaBoLgjfkg4V+bP5BDeBeLMMf+Pz68kNhPqzzKhFNWNjBr58sXKJ5m Rf+8xlQBsOIfywPsGgzK5pXLtCbzLoiQJHvh82W5lCZzP3lqLwkRIITsAQ/f4KuY ks8/VN7C2fntqWQbEk98ims3DNQaq1re1Z4E60A9cA/33BfZ0pqLojMYEa9eUBG0 V+PD73awTVDo65X05YQG6t0IcBMunYxZwAzk+G5Kt2eUwmnIEvfKOL8V9yrNiDnb 5qQy3iqjPEHImhGWAizy01xIJpz37QjBxIWZWD7h1wfsIuqoFUxJzE2WLNy9P2MV V+arEA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Mdw75dKHh8ZBU7Gne54/wtMw8Oqfk8yUjVv/GGyJw 2c=; b=thhizTYBBvTPMBzJ6uAgJirdv8jjE6i22jenDISCW2fjFamA9pBnaoi4O 0ssABkqi26CAU6q9TD4AjiNpy/KT12aZZjoEBIMWMpb/Zat3mbgpRpLyDhdWYRr2 NkH80SLDZ3vtW1JJf/YAmR5+x31+qb010/QD9X8ruFFWwdVNBpFpgT0pHUz671U+ kXcLOP5Sx40nl4eVKwr4Wt6QVm39974wwZ2Atjm/EDCdnMXp5noTdA3T8vHcXl9+ joRP8gfRmN3GEhxDsIJqtkbaHrlk6swuT/vYuMHF6H5eU/fQ7qm49kwfriIN9mRP I4YSipuG9BUwN8K5IvZikLr6YgQJg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:d3-yXqDcB66c0d6wvC5eE9DSukrntQLb72Q1ktRSM33iuwUyd0zlVw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeekgddutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthhqre dtredtleenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefgffevudevvdfgfeevhfeggf evkeeijedvheevuefhffffveduvdeghfeiueduieenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdho rhhgnecukfhppeduheekrddujeegrdegrdeggeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:d3-yXr-TNICke8EC03tCyojFSCFy4AqhhMAJ5rx-oE5WHARsTKWThQ> <xmx:d3-yXmiO-_p0lKyk437D565ZR21RlwTshmTvTloQH8HKENp8f5Akvg> <xmx:d3-yXjuN4MNVDNK-qvG8wahP9uZ2eBDChWTuFoOeZPEx67KyNx-UdQ> <xmx:d3-yXvNmf7dGXy6G_CzujnkBupEAhOMygzc8dApuw2yQBiUoqvKtTA>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1052D3066109; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 11:12:21 +0200
Message-Id: <20200506.111221.1123263348329483465.id@4668.se>
To: mvasko@cesnet.cz
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <17c7-5eb27180-37-3fe0c5c0@155473923>
References: <17c7-5eb27180-37-3fe0c5c0@155473923>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pwdVVVsHqps5VwE8zwf5vU4BM2k>
Subject: Re: [netmod] NMDA RPC/action validation
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, 06 May 2020 09:12:27 -0000

Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> when we were implementing support for NMDA, we came across the section
> about actions and RPCs [1]. What I understood from it is that,
> effectively, all RPCs and actions are validated against the data in
> the operational datastore. So, for example, instance-identifiers and
> leafref targets in the RPC/action are searched for in the operational
> datastore.

This is correct, but it is specified in section 6.1.

(Note that it applies to instance-identifiers and leafrefs defined as
rpc or action input parameters; not the contents of e.g. edit-config).


> But I realized just now that I may have interpreted this
> short section in a wrong way and read between the lines.
> 
> Because while the section is named "Invocation of Actions and RPCs",
> no changes for RPCs are explicitly mentioned, I just assumed it does
> not really make sense for them to behave differently. Also, I
> basically interpreted "invocation" as validation because I am not sure
> how else to understand it. It would be best if these terms could be
> clarified but I am not sure it is possible since new errata is
> probably not the right way.

Note that 6.2 says that it updates 7.15 of RFC 7950, which talks about
action invocation.  And also note that _validation_ is handled in 6.1.

The text in 6.2 says that if a server gets this action (from 7.15.3 in
RFC 7950):

     <rpc message-id="101"
          xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
       <action xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:1">
         <server xmlns="urn:example:server-farm">
           <name>apache-1</name>
           <reset>
             <reset-at>2014-07-29T13:42:00Z</reset-at>
           </reset>
         </server>
       </action>
     </rpc>

then the "server" with "name" "apache-1" must exist in the operational
state datastore.



/martin



> 
> Thanks for clarifying this.
> 
> Regards,
> Michal
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8342#section-6.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email