IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 9908E1294F6; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 04:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 9qiq_IFmPnVo; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C8312950A; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 04:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478085693; x=1479295293; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=5XqYIrDD5BUEVysDGJHOeo+UVXmA6VUoJFsteLJzTBE=; b=EYGXQFga+EaENjcSuh5RlSMfogfmRu96uhpqUdEIK9Wn6DKWKz9TEnsN dCKXrln7pk1s2egVOETpMMUNVF88ewuDw8wRPi/ZW/csfim2XH9YZ/cYB UPYiloOk+BbYJSH+WJULG5xCb4f8tjfLPKIMqqWinmzZLuDBtMwYJvYwp 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AvAQBEyxlY/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgywBAQEBAR9YfAeNMJcBlEeCBx0LhTBKAhqCAj8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEYQEBAQMBAQEBIBE3AwsQAgEIGAICJgICAiULFRACBA4FiE4IDqxyjQgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYEHiguEGREBHIMEglwFiEmRVAGGMooHgW6Eb4krjRiEAwEeNmeDXIE7cgGGL4EggQwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,583,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="342543036"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Nov 2016 11:21:31 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA2BLVLB019504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:31 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:21:30 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:21:30 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSNH0xNvUC0RN8V02rjfcnMnXNHKDEm3CAgAB9T4D//8MXgIAAukuA///3ZAA=
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:21:30 +0000
Message-ID: <D43F43E3.87400%acee@cisco.com>
References: <147803154180.23820.9214684669050491573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D43E7868.8712E%acee@cisco.com> <7EEAE7E3-906D-4FED-B4BF-0BA44452E7E9@nostrum.com> <D43EAEFE.87354%acee@cisco.com> <CCC88E65-A698-4881-99A4-8F98451E11B4@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CCC88E65-A698-4881-99A4-8F98451E11B4@nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <037E217FAAF73C429857EB8D82D43CCD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/tGWZ45NImdBQZC0o7sbCk4Qrr9k>
Cc: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Nov 2016 11:21:36 -0000


On 11/2/16, 3:52 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>
>> On 2 Nov 2016, at 01:45, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/1/16, 8:23 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/1/16, 4:19 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24: No Objection
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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-routing-cfg/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> 
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should the reference to 6536. Be normative?
>>>> 
>>>> I certainly don’t think so. This is simply an informative reference
>>>> describing the NETCONF access control model. The model in the draft is
>>>> in
>>>> no way dependent on this model.
>>> 
>>> I can't call myself a NETCONF expert--but if you use the model in this
>>> draft over NETCONF, are there other access control models one might
>>> realistically use? (Noting that NETCONF itself is a normative
>>> reference.)
>> 
>> NETCONF probably should not be - I’ll confer with my co-author. Note
>>that
>> NETCONF and NETCONF ACM are normative references in RFC 7223.
>
>You probably meant "are not normative references", which is the case in
>RFC 7223. It makes sense to keep it this way for data modelling work -
>securing access to data is a protocol issue. Simple implementations may
>not need the granularity of NACM, and can instead allow access only to a
>"root" user.

Yes - that’s what I meant. I’d vote to make them both informative as in
RFC 7223 - especially with the trend to use YANG with different transport
protocols. 

Thanks,
Acee


>
>Lada
>
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ben.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>--
>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email