Re: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 03:32 PM 6/18/2003, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:31:05 -0700, Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> said:
>
>Andy> I don't think it's heavy-handed to try to keep the WG focused
>Andy> on the charter.
>
>Agreed.
>
>I'll remind you that I was only responding originally to your
>statement which read:
>
>Andy> So what's so complex about reads? The authorization model?
>Andy> IMO, the authorization model amounts to a set of tuples:
>Andy> { user, operations-allowed, element-subtree }.
>Andy> Read operations amount to 1 more bit in the operations-allowed field.
>
>My original point was only that the above list was too short, in my
>opinion (of course).

I guess is too short, certainly with respect to all the various
attributes that may be taken into consideration in establishing
a security policy.  BTW, my comment above was directed at the
difference between read and write operations. 

I still think configuration of authorization mechanisms is
something that should be standardized independently of
the netconf 1.0 effort.  That was the assumption that 
went into the charter. 

Andy



>-- 
>"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
> and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett 


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>