Subject: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:32:09 -0400

I've been reviewing the environment requirements, thanks for picking up this
work.  Requirement 3 contains the following:

   REQ 3:  The I2RS Agent validates data to ensure injecting the
           information will not create a deadlock with any other system,
           nor will it create a routing loop, nor will it cause the
           control plane to fail to converge.

I2RS has already received feedback from our netconf experts expressing
concern over how validation even at the schema levels may introduce
excessive latency.  This contradicts the I2RS "need for speed".

I have a broader concern that the above requirement may simply be an
intractable problem.  It's a loft goal, but the overhead in validating all
such things is likely not within the goal of speed.

Thoughts?

-- Jeff

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:32:37 -0400

<no-hats>

Good catch - this seems to be very aspirational and contradicts
what the architecture says - which is basically that the user may
cause issues.

Regards,
Alia
</no-hats>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:53:50 -0400

Jeff: 

I agree it is a goal rather than an absolute.  My first discussions with
Daniel pointed this out.  Do you think moving it back to 

   REQ 3:  The I2RS Agent validates data to try to insure that
         injecting the Information does not create a deadlock with any other
system
        or a routing loop or prevent the control plane from converging.
       (This is a goal for the system, and it should keep track of when
        Injecting information does cause deadlocks, routing loops, or 
        retards the routing convergence process.). 

Or is it better to suggest it as a recommendation?  Any thoughts? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

Thoughts?

-- Jeff

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:54:33 -0400

Alia and Jeff:

Should we just drop this requirement? 

Sue 

From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:33 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

<no-hats>

cause issues.

Regards,

Alia

</no-hats>

Thoughts?

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:01:16 -0400

[Answering in this response]

> Should we just drop this requirement? 

I think that may be the right thing to do.  Even if it's aspirational,
including it as a "requirement" may set the bar so high that it sabotages
our other goals for I2RS.

The aspiration, "Don't mess up your system", is rather hard to enforce.
Vendors are too often in the position of selling ropes to their customers to
hang themselves with - or do macrame.  But it's still rope.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:59:16 -0400

Jeff:

That sounds like the best idea. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 5:01 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

-- Jeff

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:07:48 +0200

>         retards the routing convergence process.). 

I already pointed out on July 21 that this requirement is not
implementable. Adding hand-waving text to it does not help, so
I am in favour of removing it.

/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: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:26:18 -0400

Juergen:

Thank you for you input and your reference to your previous message.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:08 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> Jeff: 
> 
> I agree it is a goal rather than an absolute.  My first discussions 
> with Daniel pointed this out.  Do you think moving it back to
> 
> 
>          injecting the Information does not create a deadlock with any 
> other system

I already pointed out on July 21 that this requirement is not implementable.
Adding hand-waving text to it does not help, so I am in favour of removing
it.

/js

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:42:00 -0400

+1

> On Aug 28, 2015:3:07 AM, at 3:07 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 21:58:19 -0400

Hi,

This has been removed. I agree that if that if it is not implementable, we
should not have it (even as a recommendation), Thanks for the feed back. I
am catching up with all received comments.

BR,
Daniel

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> > On Aug 28, 2015:3:07 AM, at 3:07 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> other