Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: Discuss
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-revised-datastores/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, Thanks for your work on this draft. I'm a little confused with some text in the draft and have a few questions. 1. The introductions says, "This architectural framework identifies a set of conceptual datastores but it does not mandate that all network management protocols expose all these conceptual datastores. This architecture is agnostic with regard to the encoding used by network management protocols." As such, the data stores could be exposed for some implementations, using whatever network management protocol (likely NetCONF or RESTCONF). If this is the case, why doesn't at least some of the security considerations template apply for at least secure transport? 2. Section 5.3.4 - Is there any integrity protection on the origin information? If not, can it be added or is there a good reason why it’s not possible? I realize these are conceptual models that may or may not be exposed, but if exposed and used, wouldn’t some integrity protection on this be helpful? Thanks in advance! _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
