Yes, I agree that requiring someyhing like transport mirroring would be
unfortunate.

I also don't think that we should be defining required syslog messages.

But the interesting question is whether something reasonable could be done
for vendor-agnostic traceability...

Alia
On Aug 14, 2013 1:29 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote:

> These look like things outside of the scope of I2RS>  I would not want to
> define message mirroring as part of the transport protocol requirements,
> for example.
>
> yours,
> Joel
>
> On 8/14/13 12:39 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I certainly agree that keeping logs of the APIs done and their results
>> or, perhaps, having the ability to mirror the requests and responses to
>> a collector would be useful.
>>
>> With CLI, I agree that this is frequently done with syslog today - which
>> then necessitates vendor-specific code to scrape through.
>>
>> What would be a meaningful accountability framework that would be
>> appropriate and, hopefully, not require vendor-specific screen-scraping?
>>
>> Completely off the top of my head, I can see the following ideas:
>>     (a) mirror all (or a meaningful subset) messages in/out to a
>> collector that then stores/sorts/logs the information
>>     (b) Define an accountability information model that defines what
>> should be stored and have it stored in the canonical form required by
>> the selected data-model.  Perhaps mandate it be stored in a file for
>> acquisition?  Have the ability to read it?
>>
>> and I'm sure that there are many others...
>>
>> I do think this is an important area and it could use some good
>> discussion (and even a draft or a section to go into the architecture).
>>
>> Alia
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 8/14/13 12:11 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>      > [Alia] I think that (1) belongs in the architecture.  I agree
>>     that it is
>>      > important - but I feel that the problem-statement part is covered
>>     in the
>>      > Multi-Headed Control.
>>      > (2) is mostly covered in "Secure Control".  I did add "Such
>>      > communications must also have its integrity protected." since we
>>     hadn't
>>      > mentioned integrity but just authentication and authorization.
>>      > For (3), I'm not sure what aspects specifically apply to I2RS...
>>  We
>>      > have authentication and authorization and, in the architecture,
>>     tracking
>>      > of state written.  What knobs or functionality are you looking for
>> in
>>      > accounting?
>>
>>     I'll comment here, and I'm sure Carlos will chime in with anything I
>>     miss or if he sees things differently.
>>
>>     Coming from a services/support mindset, accountability from a tracing
>>     point of view is important.  I would like to see a history of actions
>>     performed, the client that performed them, when the actions were
>>     performed (with very granular timestamps), and the result code.
>>
>>     Forgive me for using a vendor reference here (as an example), but in
>>     Cisco IOS we have the buffer of CLI commands executed and syslog
>>     messages generated.  This buffer is very useful when it comes to
>> tracing
>>     a crash back to potential triggers.  As we look to incorporate our own
>>     APIs, we want to provide the same kind of history log to try and tie
>> API
>>     calls back to potential problems on the device.
>>
>>     With I2RS in particular, while crashes are certainly possible, being
>>     able to look back at operations and correlate problems like packet
>> loss,
>>     service interruption, performance deviations, etc. will be vital from
>> a
>>     troubleshooting standpoint.
>>
>>     Joe
>>
>>     --
>>     Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
>>     SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
>>     Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
>>     Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867 <tel:%2B1%20%28919%29%20392-**2867>
>> c
>>     i s c o  S y s t e m s
>>     Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>     ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ----------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/i2rs<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to