Hi,

The use of NACM for server-provided data is under-specified (at best)


from sec. 4.1:

   Finally, there is an object "server-provided".  This object is state
   that indicates how the network came into being.  Network data can
   come into being in one of two ways.  In one way, network data is
   configured by client applications, for example in case of overlay
   networks that are configured by an SDN Controller application.  In
   annother way, it is populated by the server, in case of networks that
   can be discovered.

   If server-provided is set to false, the network was configured by a
   client application, for example in the case of an overlay network
   that is configured by a controller application.  If server-provided
   is set to true, the network was populated by the server itself,
   respectively an application on the server that is able to discover
   the network.  *Client applications SHOULD NOT modify configurations of
   networks for which "server-provided" is true.*  When they do, they
   need to be aware that any modifications they make are subject to be
   reverted by the server.  For servers that support NACM (Netconf
   Access Control Model), *data node rules should ideally prevent* write
   access by other clients to network instances for which server-
   provided is set to true.


The SHOULD NOT above is really odd, considering is not supported by YANG
or the NC/RC protocols.

"data node rules should ideally prevent"

s/should/SHOULD/

Ideally prevent?
Is that a new engineering term?
Either this new usage of NACM works or it doesn't.

Also, there is no guidance or examples of the NACM config that the
server is supposed to magically create for server-provided topology data.
There is nothing in NACM at all about server-created data rules.
This is not supported by NACM.

Does the I2RS text imply that the server-provided property extends
to the NACM sub-trees? They are also subject to replacement by the server?
The client SHOULD NOT change these NACM rules?

IMO the way this server-provided property is being done is a short-sighted
point solution, but this should be a fundamental part of the revised
datastores work.
Is there something special about network topology such that
server-provided data for a different module will require a different
solution? If not, is the topo module solution reusable?


Andy
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to