Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04

Daniel Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Mon, 09 July 2018 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBBF130E48; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 L47ePNAFVgHn; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1557130E31; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net ([76.93.146.89]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.7-x02 #1001) with ESMTP id <0PBL00J7MWMVC6@wwwlocal.goatley.com>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 11:04:07 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from thinny.local ([66.238.57.226]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #1001) with ESMTPSA id <0PBL0041UWMMH4@trixy.bergandi.net>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 66.238.57.226.ptr.us.xo.net ([66.238.57.226] EXTERNAL) (EHLO thinny.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:03:59 -0700
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:03:12 -0700
From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
In-reply-to: <DB8ED828-D18F-4AEF-A7AB-884D085ECDA7@juniper.net>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf.all@ietf.org>
Message-id: <8dbe0263-de63-0ddd-86db-04fa7744155c@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=66.238.57.226)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 66.238.57.226.ptr.us.xo.net [66.238.57.226] (EHLO thinny.local)
References: <f919a44f-d93b-f399-cc5d-1353c1c5b57d@lounge.org> <20180704124128.qpr7tunjw5quiex6@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <9b2f8091-9ead-e188-ee34-1acfead2dcd2@lounge.org> <20180704183436.zjzwz4vowqi5phz7@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <14e7ae2d-90ae-32c5-c814-a2d31e9f1a4e@lounge.org> <DB8ED828-D18F-4AEF-A7AB-884D085ECDA7@juniper.net>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [180709] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/9giRHlAHetUY9ZmcvCYhBejjZLI>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 16:04:11 -0000

On 7/5/18 7:46 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> I think that the current wording is okay, but I'm okay with changing
> it too. How about this?
>
>
> OLD:
>     The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9) is
>     optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  The associated capability to indicate a
>     server's support is identified with the URI:
>
> NEW:
>     The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9)
>     MAY be supported for the operational state datastore.  Support
>     for the "with-defaults" query parameter for the operational
>     state datastore is identified with the URI:
>
>
>
> OLD:
>     The "with-origin" query parameter is optional to support.  It is
>     identified with the URI:
>
> NEW:
>     The "with-origin" query parameter MAY be supported.  Support
>     for the "with-origin" query parameter is identified with the
>     URI:
>
>
>
> FWIW, elsewhere in the draft is another "optional" usage that could
> be changed:
>
>   OLD:
>     An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  Other datastore resources are optional to
>     implement.
>
>   NEW:
>     An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  Other datastore resources MAY be
>     implemented.
>
>
>
> Comments?

   Looks fine, thanks.

   Dan.

>
> Kent  // co-author
>
>
>
> On 7/4/18 11:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:08:10AM -0700, Daniel Harkins wrote:
>>>     I'm suggesting SHOULD _or_ MAY and I thought where would be obvious.
>>> It is the places that say "optional to support" in 3.2.1. and 3.2.2 as
>>> I indicated. For example, 3.2.1 says,
>>>
>>>      The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc8040-23section-2D4.8.9&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fApqY-LnEgjm4NbObNcu5L44jAZ2UYJz0CWl5q4U0YE&s=r65kakpgV3OSbY6iIzByXMmqvV-45Vo9wkXZHji8jlk&e=>) is
>>>      optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>>>      datastores:operational.
>>>
>>> 3.2.2 has similar text. As to why, it is for consistency and clarity in
>>> expressing what you want.
>>>
>> What is unclear about 'optional to support'? RFC 8040 uses similar
>> language and I do not recall that anyone had a problem with this so
>> far.
>     If you want to reject my comment then just reject my comment. It was made
> in the spirit of improving your draft which apparently you take issue with
> for some bizarre reason. If someone outside the RFC 8040 bubble you seem
> to be
> living in found the wording lacking in clarity then it would seem logical to
> infer that maybe others might too. Just a thought.
>
>     Dan.
>
>
>
>