I am not blaming the messenger.
I am just noting that from my implementer's viewpoint your security
concerns seem different if you are presented as config=true or config=false.
These have a different security model by definition and by
implementation in most cases.
This is in addition to the specific I2RS security concerns.
A.
On 24/01/17 17:50, Susan Hares wrote:
Anton:
See earlier message to Martin. Topology models are I2RS YANG Models
designed for ephemeral state with specific security concerns. This is not
your basic YANG model no matter which data store ephemeral gets linked to.
Where is ephemeral state? By IESG Design of charter, I2RS is not in charge
of defining ephemeral state solution. NETMOD/NETCONF are. Go ask them.
Do not blame the messenger echoing NETMOD results,
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anton Ivanov
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
On 24/01/17 11:52, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Susan,
so are these YANG models regular YANG models or are these YANG models
specific to the yet to be defined I2RS protocol and yet to be defined
datastores?
I think this is the core of Martin's and my question. A simple clear
and concise answer would be nice.
+1.
A.
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
