Re: latest beep draft

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> We talked about this.  A netconf manager is certainly going to know it 
> is a netconf manager and a netconf agent is certainly going to know 
> it's a netconf agent.  This leaves two cases:
>  o where the server is also a client
>  o where a client is misconfigured
>
> I think this could be handled with a netconf capability that says 
> "iam-manager" or "iam-agent", but as I recall consensus was against 
> me.  Now, I could introduce that concept as an option in the 
> <greeting> in the BEEP protocol mappin if there are no objections.  
> That would handle the corner case...

I don't want special-case handling for BEEP.
Steve already provided the answer -- only a NETCONF peer acting in the 
agent role
should send the <session-id> element in the capabilities exchange.  If 
neither send it
or both send it, then the session should be shut down immediately.

Andy

> Eliot
>
> Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:
>
> > Not sure if it is too late for comments on this doc, but here it is 
> > anyway.
> >
> > Section 2.1 last paragraph
> > "it is assumed that each knows its role in the conversation."
> >
> > What happens when this assumption is wrong? How is it detected, and what
> > actions are to be taken?
> >
> > If I am a manager and I receive a <rpc> from someone I thought was an 
> > agent,
> > what should I do? Probably close the channel.
> > If 2 agents connect to each other, they can exchange <hello> messages 
> > and
> > then sit there forever waiting for the other to send an <rpc> of some 
> > sort.
> > I suppose the agents could detect this by noticing that the received 
> > <hello>
> > has a <session-id> element, and that only other agents send this 
> > element.
> > The action again should probably be to close the channel.
> >
> > This situation is specific to BEEP because the SSH mapping specifies 
> > that
> > only managers can initiate sessions.
> > -steve
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] 
> > > On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:24 AM
> > > To: netconf
> > > Subject: latest beep draft
> > >
> > > I believe I have addressed issues raised in the WG last call. Can 
> > > those who had comments (Juergen, Wes) take a quick scan? In particular:
> > >
> > >  - addressed security issues regarding SASL & TLS
> > >  - added examples - are these enough?
> > >  - clarified use of <hello> and <greeting>
> > >
> > > The draft is at the following URL and is still relatively short:
> > >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-beep-04.txt
> > >
> > > Eliot
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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/>
> >
> > --
> > 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/>
>
> --
> 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/>


--
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/>