Subject: [lmap] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:09:02 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: No Objection

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-lmap-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The security considerations looks good, but can't YANG also be accessed
via RESTCONF?  What considerations are needed for that?  I thunk we went
through this for I2RS, do considerations for RESTCONF apply to this YANG
module?

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:18:35 +0100

> through this for I2RS, do considerations for RESTCONF apply to this YANG

Yes, the document is using the old template. Looking at
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-12.txt (posted March 5th) and
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines I do not
see a new template either. I think I recall having seen some
discussion somewhere (probably related to I2RS) but then I do not see
new text in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-12.txt. While I can make
up my own text, I think I prefer following a new template. Benoit?

/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: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:01:43 +0100

Dear all,
> up my own text, I think I prefer following a new template. Benoit?
Yes, a new template is better.
Note that the I2RS discussion is a different one, because they want the 
ability to have yet another protocol (different that NETCONF and 
RESTCONF), an insecure protocol.

The discussion regarding the new template with a RESTCONF reference 
started on the NETMOD mailing list. The SEC ADs are copied. We want to 
make sure that you guys are fine with it.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:33:03 -0400

Hi Benoit,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ability to have yet another protocol (different that NETCONF and RESTCONF),
> an insecure protocol.

I believe it is the same discussion.  I2RS is using NETCONF and
RESTCONF only for transports.  The other considerations for their
document was bout markings in a data model that allow for an approach
that is the reverse of what we normally see/recommend.

>
> The discussion regarding the new template with a RESTCONF reference started
> on the NETMOD mailing list. The SEC ADs are copied. We want to make sure
> that you guys are fine with it.

I'll see if I can find this to help wrap it up.

Thanks.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen