Re: [Panic] Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work
"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 15 August 2017 21:47 UTC
Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: panic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: panic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC91C13240B for <panic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0wRijGgpMoxc for <panic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3950113219E for <Panic@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=352440; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1502833668; x=1504043268; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=u2XOtu0cNR6A2RaucQ6EXcSLc8swKxMzfRVT46DmRjQ=; b=KSby6Zf9nz34JsiLQEkzNcEX7flnzDsbXDXlEd/peOb4d61+b+oxnA+f R+C7pc4sAA8MVd5zEmtN41uRFui5bHYB8R/FI+QobpTitRfQFCwRpgwwP g0Wn/swbuHP1u0igNZfmO02fosxwOhoF2v2vpqQwUkn9StxZP+nYSxV2e Y=;
X-Files: IETF99_Hackathon-Repoort_v0.5.pdf : 246833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CgBABKa5NZ/5hdJa3JcQQCAQIB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,379,1498521600"; d="pdf'?scan'208,217";a="281250544"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Aug 2017 21:47:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7FLlkKR022891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:47:47 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:47:46 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:47:46 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
CC: "Panic@ietf.org" <Panic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work
Thread-Index: AQHS/73fXo/mm8T7OUaVLLaa8IVZBKKGEJZg
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <1574195401ad46f092e8eadb753ce8a5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <MWHPR09MB1440212335EEC576DFFCA3D7F0A10@MWHPR09MB1440.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR09MB1440212335EEC576DFFCA3D7F0A10@MWHPR09MB1440.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_1574195401ad46f092e8eadb753ce8a5XCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panic/4T8G8bm5UZUEEQ56dhbW188zz8o>
Subject: Re: [Panic] Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work
X-BeenThere: panic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Posture Assessment Through Network Information Collection \(panic\)" <panic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/panic>, <mailto:panic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panic/>
List-Post: <mailto:panic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:panic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/panic>, <mailto:panic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:47:51 -0000
Hi David, Since others' haven't commented yet, I can start... I believe the yang-push mechanisms could be applicable. A high level mapping would be: * Network Device can be a yang-push Publisher * Posture Server can be a yang-push Subscriber * Data Store (out of scope of yang-push) I am one of the yang-push authors, so please make the comparisons yourself. However there are proof-points that this is doable. For example, attached are some minutes from the last IETF Hackathon. Here Cisco & Huawei Network Devices pushed YANG object changes over NETCONF to a Posture Server (in this case an XMPP-grid server). Eric From: Panic [mailto:panic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Waltermire, David A. (Fed) Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:06 AM To: Panic@ietf.org Subject: [Panic] Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work Now that we have a clearer statement of scope [1], I'd like to get some discussion going around what existing work can be used to address the "abstract" solution described in the scope draft. The yang-push family of work has been suggested. How does this work overlay with the PANIC components in the scope draft? Is this work appropriate? Other alternatives? Are there gaps that need to be addressed? Please share your thoughts. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-waltermire-panic-scope-02 Regards, Dave draft-waltermire-panic-scope-02 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-waltermire-panic-scope-02> datatracker.ietf.org Posture Assessment Through Posture Information Collection Discussion Scope (Internet-Draft, 2017)
- [Panic] Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work Waltermire, David A. (Fed)
- Re: [Panic] Discussion Topic: Use of Existing Work Eric Voit (evoit)