Subject: Re: [Netconf] YACM? (RE: WG Adoption Call for draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis WAS:FW: new NACM draft)

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:08:40 +0000

>> Perhaps NACM should really be renamed to YACM;-)  I know, the draft is in
>> the Netconf WG, not Netmod, so why should it not be specific to Netconf and
>> Restconf, but still…
>
> hmm - that might be a better name as we adjust to the fact that
> YANG is no longer coupled to NETCONF.
>

Agreed.

Kent

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:41:03 +0100

Well, the way I look at things is that we have

(1) YANG to describe the naming and the semantics of data,

(2) we have datastores to conceptually maintain instantiations of YANG
    defined data (I am using conceptual here since operational state
    typically does not exist as data stored in a datastore but the
    datastore provides only a conceptual view an data returned by
    instrumentation callbacks),

(3) protocols such as NETCONF and RESTCONF to access the datastores.

If you follow this viewpoint for a moment, then NACM really is about
access to datastores, i.e., it is a much more datastore access control
model then it is a YANG access control model. Perhaps it is a
YANG-defined datastore access control model.

/js 

/js This view might remind some people to the beginning of Section 2.2
    of RFC 3410 and yes I think we are architecturally not doing
    something fundamentally different these days, even though the
    details of the technology have advanced significantly.

> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
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: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:50:45 -0800

> YANG-defined datastore access control model.

NACM also controls access to notification, RPC, and action
which may not be datastore-related.

 I prefer not to change the name because it is already known and used,
and changing it will not fix as many problems as it would create.

/js

Andy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:55:35 +0100

> which may not be datastore-related.

Sure.

> and changing it will not fix as many problems as it would create.

I agree, changing the name does not buy anything and I would not do
this. I am just saying that YACM may not even be better than NACM.

/js

---

From: Alexander Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:15:07 +0000

>From my perspective, this is fine, but the text should make it very clear that this is about access to YANG-defined datastores, YANG-defined RPCs, and YANG-defined notifications, independent of access protocol.  I believe the goal is to maintain separation between protocol, datastores, data definitions (somewhat changed from when this all started), so it is important to avoid interdependencies and have clear messaging.  
--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 1:56 PM
To: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Cc: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>; Alexander Clemm <[email-masked]>; Netconf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YACM? (RE: WG Adoption Call for draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis WAS:FW: new NACM draft)

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 01:50:45PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > access to datastores, i.e., it is a much more datastore access 
> > control model then it is a YANG access control model. Perhaps it is 
> > a YANG-defined datastore access control model.
> >
> >
> 
> NACM also controls access to notification, RPC, and action which may 
> not be datastore-related.
>

Sure.

> and changing it will not fix as many problems as it would create.

I agree, changing the name does not buy anything and I would not do this. I am just saying that YACM may not even be better than NACM.

/js

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:51:32 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 9:50 PM

<tp>

I agree.  There are plenty of acronyms and such-like that are plain
stupid when looked at logically, but which are widely used and
understood and for which change can only confuse in the short or even
the long term.  All the existing documentation and references will take
a very long time to be replaced, even in a fast moving world such as
ours.

Tom Petch

/js

Andy

> > >> Perhaps NACM should really be renamed to YACM;-)  I know, the
draft
> is in

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:03:08 +0100

> On 15 Feb 2017, at 11:51, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1

After all, NETCONF is also a working group, not only protocol.

Lada

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67