Hi -

>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2016 9:23 AM
>To: Eliot Lear <[email protected]>
>Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
><[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
><[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, Stephen 
>Farrell <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on 
>draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)
>
>On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:12:24PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>> 
>> On 3/22/16 4:42 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> > I think such considerations belongs into documents making use of
>> > object signatures and close to 100% of the YANG models today don't
>> > so I do not even think this qualifies for RFC6087bis.
>> >
>> 
>> I think there are AT LEAST two areas where signatures are going to be
>> necessary:
>> 
>>   * There exist multi-level authorization schemes today that rely on
>>     signatures.  Those have to be transported.
>>   * Manufacturer usage descriptions (MUDs) have extremely broad scope in
>>     terms of the number of devices that are intended to use the same
>>     description (think thousands to millions).  And so an unauthorized
>>     change could have a similarly broad impact.
>> 
>> 
>> Thus, wherever the YANG experts think signatures should happen in each
>> encoding case is fine with me; but I'd suggest that I'm not the only
>> person who's going to want to know.  Is it THAT hard to at least add a
>> reference?  Because if it is, that would cause me to wonder if the
>> mechanisms are really in place to do the right thing.
>> 
>
>Eliot,
>
>I simply fail to understand what the problem is and I fail to see
>which addition (ideally in concrete words) is proposed to fix the
>problem.

The problem is that the current approach does not address representing
blobs of configuration data as (signed) documents independent of the
protocol used for shoveling those blobs around.

Randy

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to