Subject: Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:26:30 -0500

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:15:52AM -0500, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The status reports go to the LMAP controller, so I do not really see
>>> why there is a specific risk since the controller has access to the
>>> device ID anyway.
>> 
>> I still am missing what is the rationale for sending the device ID in the status reports. I thought the agent ID was meant to uniquely identify the MA.
>> 
> 
> So here we go. I propose the following change:
> 
>  - The ma-status-agent-id becomes optional.
>  - The ma-status-device-id becomes mandatory again.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
>  If a device does not yet have an MA-ID, then the device-id must be
>  accessible such that the controller can configure an MA-ID.

Section 3.1 says:

"The MA may be pre-configured with an MA ID, or may use a Device ID in
   the first Controller contact before it is assigned an MA ID.  The
   Device ID may be a MAC address or some other device identifier
   expressed as a URI.  If the MA ID is not provided at this stage then
   it must be provided by the Controller during Configuration.”

Why would an MA be sending a status report before configuration?

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> /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: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:23:53 +0100

> Why would an MA be sending a status report before configuration?

The ma-status-obj models status information, it is not modeling a
status report. I think the reason for having the device-id in the
status information is that this is the only way to obtain it if it is
not configured.

/js

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:38:37 -0500

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Ok. But in a setup where the controller doesn’t actually need the device-id (because the agent-id is pre-configured and the controller uses that to uniquely identify the MA), this requires the device-id to be divulged to the controller unnecessarily. That case could be accommodated by making both the agent-id and the device-id optional and specifying that the device-id should be provided if it was not provided in pre-configuration.

Alissa

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:39:58 -0500

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 

Actually, that last bit should say: if it was not provided in pre-configuration and if the MA has no agent-id.

Alissa

>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:42:07 +0100

> Ok. But in a setup where the controller doesn’t actually need the device-id (because the agent-id is pre-configured and the controller uses that to uniquely identify the MA), this requires the devi…

I remain unconvinced. We do not have a notion of 'conditionally
optional' in the information model and I do not want to introduce
one.

In the YANG data mode, the device-id is not present because such an id
is covered by other YANG models and those models and we have an access
control model to control access, i.e., access control policies are
detached from the data definitions. I am fine with a statement that
people should be careful about exposing device-ids when this is not
needed in the security considerations but I am against changing the
information model.

/js

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:45:22 -0800

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> 
>> 

Ok. Let’s go with that plan then.

Alissa

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:05:01 +0100

> Ok. Let’s go with that plan then.

I have added

  Implementations and deployments should also be careful about exposing
  device-ids when this is not strictly needed.

at the end of the second paragraph in the security considerations.

/js