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

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:19:01 -0700

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?

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:55:01 +0000

Hi Ben, 

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/

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.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 19:23:29 -0500

On 1 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

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.)

Ben.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:45:33 +0000

>realistically use? (Noting that NETCONF itself is a normative

NETCONF probably should not be - I’ll confer with my co-author. Note that
NETCONF and NETCONF ACM are normative references in RFC 7223.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 08:52:15 +0100

> On 2 Nov 2016, at 01:45, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

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.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:21:30 +0000

On 11/2/16, 3:52 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:25:04 +0100

> RFC 7223 - especially with the trend to use YANG with different transport

NACM should be transport independent; if it is not, we need to fix
that.  That said, I agree that references to NETCONF or NACM should be
informative and not normative, like in RFC 7223.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:58:21 +0100

> informative and not normative, like in RFC 7223.
Agreed.

Regards, B.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:52:26 -0500

> RFC 7223 - especially with the trend to use YANG with different transport

Based on the discussion so far, I'm okay with them staying informational.

Thanks!

Ben.