Hi Diego,
I think this is interesting work, and I’d like to see this evolve. I would
somewhat prefer that this work lives in NETMOD. I suspect more people would be
interested there, but I guess either WG could work.
When it comes to the detailed expression of the signature in XML payload, I
don’t think the current approach works. In Appendix A one of the examples
contains the following:
<interfaces-state xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
<signature-string>
0oRRowNjeG1sBGdlYzIua2V5ASag9lhAvzyFP5HP0nONaqTRxKmSqerrDS6CQXJSK+5NdprzQZLf0QsHtAi2pxzbuDJDy9kZoy1JTvNaJmMxGTLdm4ktug==
</signature-string>
<interface>
<name>GigabitEthernet1</name>
According to XML encoding/decoding rules, the above means the signature-string
tag is defined in the ietf-interfaces module, which it clearly is not. So a
violation of basic XML principles. We also need to find a way for clients to
reliably identify these signature strings.
Perhaps this could be solved in a similar way as with the NETCONF+RESTCONF
transaction-id values, as described in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-transaction-id/ In fact,
one of the use cases for transaction-id is precisely to provide cryptographic
signatures for the payload.
In any case, I’d be happy to participate in a discussion (privately, or as a
side meeting, or whatever) around how these signature tags would ideally be
handled in XML and other transport encodings.
Best Regards,
/jan
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 15 July 2024 at 20:21
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: OPSAWG Digest, Vol 206, Issue 54
Send OPSAWG mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of OPSAWG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance (Diego R. Lopez)
2. Re: draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance (Joe Clarke (jclarke))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:44:31 +0000
From: "Diego R. Lopez" <[email protected]>
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>, "Joe Clarke
(jclarke)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]
prd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_VE1PR06MB71504F
817E2C743A7A8F81B1DFA12VE1PR06MB7150eurp_"
Hmmm… My understanding was that it was supposed to continue in OPSAWG and not
move to NETMOD, as it started its way in OPSWAG in 116, if I remember well.
Be goode,
--
“Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno”
Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/
e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
---------------------------------
On 15/7/24, 18:12, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michael/Joe,
I looked at the minutes of NETMOD from 119, and Kent’s comment was that:
It sounds like you are still experimenting on this. I
suggest to bring it back and give an update when you are ready and we
can guage interest.
There was no suggestion that it should be taken to OPSAWG.
Thanks.
On Jul 15, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Thanks for the read-through, Michael.
This work was presented in opsawg and netmod before. At 119, it was presented
in netmod, and Diego got the comment from Kent that this seemed experimental
and to come back when more work has been done.
Diego wants to discuss the implementation work they’ve done, and I feel this is
a valid comment for his adoption question: should this be in opsawg or netmod?
Joe
From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 at 11:51
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [OPSAWG]draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance
Hi Joe, reading the agenda, I was interested in:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance/
why isn't this in NETMOD?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> . o
O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
-------------- next part --------------
A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 13672 bytes
Desc: not available
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 18:20:10 +0000
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[email protected]>
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]
prd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN9PR11MB53718A
603063B4466354D17DB8A12BN9PR11MB5371namp_"
Right, there was no suggestion there. I didn’t mean to imply it was. I was
saying that Kent’s comment implied the draft might come back to netmod after
more progress.
…But it had already been presented at opsawg at previous meetings. This isn’t
net-new work to opsawg. If the WG doesn’t see interest in adopting, then
perhaps this would fit better in netmod. As a chair here, I appreciate the
feedback as this helps us gauge working group interest.
Joe
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 at 12:12
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance
Hi Michael/Joe,
I looked at the minutes of NETMOD from 119, and Kent’s comment was that:
It sounds like you are still experimenting on this. I
suggest to bring it back and give an update when you are ready and we
can guage interest.
There was no suggestion that it should be taken to OPSAWG.
Thanks.
On Jul 15, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Thanks for the read-through, Michael.
This work was presented in opsawg and netmod before. At 119, it was presented
in netmod, and Diego got the comment from Kent that this seemed experimental
and to come back when more work has been done.
Diego wants to discuss the implementation work they’ve done, and I feel this is
a valid comment for his adoption question: should this be in opsawg or netmod?
Joe
From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 at 11:51
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [OPSAWG]draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance
Hi Joe, reading the agenda, I was interested in:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance/
why isn't this in NETMOD?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> . o
O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-------------- next part --------------
A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 9586 bytes
Desc: not available
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
------------------------------
End of OPSAWG Digest, Vol 206, Issue 54
***************************************
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
