Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(David Harrington) (was Discuss) Yes
1) in section 3.5, the one sentence refers to section 3.5. I don't think the sentence adds anything, even if you meant to point to the YANG module in 3.5.2.
(Dan Romascanu) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2011-11-28 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
- I'd still be happier if there were more text advising developers to be careful mapping from an authenticated identity to a NACM user name and associated groups, and in particular calling out a pitfall or two in doing that (e.g. i18n in names, null characters in authenticated identity). That is there by reference (to RFC 6241 I guess) but it'd be better to be explicit I think. (In section 3.3.1 ideally.) - Its still not quite clear to me how the "transport layer" can provide group memberships properly. RFC 6421 doesn't say and 2.5 just says that something "such as a RADIUS server" could be used. I think you could add a security consideration saying that unless you have the same level of security in how you get the username and group membership information, then you might be in trouble. E.g. if SSH provides the username with fairly good security, but then RADIUS is used for group memberships with less good security, then you may have a problem. - typo: 3.7.1 s/contents enabled,/contents is enabled,/
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection
Comment (2011-11-29 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I concur with Stephen Farrell's comments about the incompleteness and vagueness of the text about derivation and handling of user names and group names.
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Sean Turner) No Objection
Comment (2011-11-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
#1) I agree with Stephen & Peter. #2) s2.6: It might be nice to clarify this somewhat: It ought to be possible to disable part or all of the access control model without deleting any access control rules. s3.1.1: and here: o The entire ACM can be disabled during operation, in order to debug operational problems. I agree it ought to be possible but it ought to be possible only by appropriately authorized users (i.e., the admin). #3) s3.1.2: Contains the following: It is expected that the mandatory transport mapping NETCONF Over SSH [RFC6242] is also supported by the server, and that the server has access to the user name associated with each session. Why isn't this a MUST/SHOULD kind of sentence: Servers MUST support the NETCONF Over SSH [RFC6242] It is expected that the mandatory transport mapping, and the server MUST have access to the user name associated with each session.