[NMOP] Re: Question on draft-ietf-nmop-yang-message-broker-integration - ietf-system-capabilities

[Per Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 9:18 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear RFC 9196 authors,
>
>
>
> Reshad and I have a different understanding on wherever through NACM YANG node permissions are inherited or not. Or in other words if a Netconf/Restconf client has certain permissions to access a certain YANG node defined by NACM, depending on those permission only subscribe able YANG nodes would be shown.
>
> I understood that Reshad interprets below text that all YANG nodes regardless would be shown.

As a contributor and having implemented RFC 9196, I interpret
node-instance-identifier as having access restricted by applicable
NACM rules for the user viewing the tree.

I am sensitive about leaking data or even existence of paths
without applying the the correct access control.

The Security Considerations in RFC 9196 state the following:

   All protocol-accessible data nodes in augmented modules are read-only
   and cannot be modified.  Access control may be configured to avoid
   exposing any read-only data that is defined by the augmenting module
   documentation as being security sensitive.

I would argue that showing existence of paths in the
/system-capabilities tree when the user aren't allowed
access to these nodes directly is a leak.


--
Per, contributor