[tcpm] On pushback against draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp
"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Fri, 12 March 2021 17:20 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D086F3A14D0 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:20:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 lZCCeS89awRy for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F146D3A169C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:20:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B787F25A1D for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:20:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1615569649; bh=tNioL5dj4tPbPSfKXI1EjG60QDHGa4qnJyjklc/F7rM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=l8jk4GMRPlGLUZCManIbFQGQoNlhEXiUO041ylgvWCC+EHfOcJEU+EHIWLzkzLncb RJIUEg84Lts7t/AIvi++vO9Mo1R3fc1lh61XDBLONtMJ0Uc0mjwFRbZ6fYl9eKRyrr Tq3/UQ0xpBaynbFmg8TyvkkFk5M/hN4GYeGksx0I=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mxTaTCQ-Bq0a for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:20:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:20:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:20:47 +0100
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.009; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:20:47 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: On pushback against draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp
Thread-Index: AdcXYfDpc6iPsJqoR8GP66rEkoW21A==
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:20:47 +0000
Message-ID: <6a68d44c9f004752935bb0986b285f6c@hs-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.48.168]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_019A_01D7176C.6C5007D0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/17x0YIAI5BOXz4fTuXrPS1LYy9g>
Subject: [tcpm] On pushback against draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:20:56 -0000
In today's meeting there was a negative comment on the lack of reference from draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server to draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp. As I have already said orally, I do not think that this concern is valid. In particular, such a reference was *not* suggested when I have asked for WG adoption in TCPM. Details on WG adoption can be found in my slide deck for IETF 108: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/materials/slides-108-tcpm-draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06-02 I don't understand which part of that old presentation would back today's comment on the mic. BTW, as far as I can tell, it is not very common to use TCP-AO to protect the *management plane* of a router, i.e., NETCONF, RESTCONF, or SSH. If TCP-AO is not used for the app protocol, a YANG model for an app protocol (such as draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server) does not need to reference draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp with the current scope. That should actually be obvious. Unless I miss something, TCP-AO is typically used to protect *control plane* protocols, e.g., BGP, LDP, and the like. As explained before WG adoption, the most relevant user of the TCPM model inside the IETF is currently BGP, i.e., draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model. And the document draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10 indeeds imports TCP-AO definitions from the TCPM document. Granted, the reference to "I-D.scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp" needs to be updated to the most recent version of the TCPM WG item, but the authors work on that. So, what is missing here? Michael (as author who tries to do useful work across different IETF areas)
- [tcpm] On pushback against draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-t… Scharf, Michael