Re: copy-config

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Lei Zhang wrote:

> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > > including deliberate attempts to
> > > cause denial of service to other users of the system.
> > >   
> >
> >
> > If the agent has to buffer everything, it might be easier to do a dos
> > attack!
> >  
> Second this. Requiring netconf server to buffer all inline data before 
> start editing seems really lame.
>
> The DOS claim is unjustified - why would a properly authenticated user 
> attack a netconf server?


A few comments:

- This is good implementation feedback. the kind we said we wanted.
- Dismissing the issue as implementation-specific is not a good idea.
- Worrying about the buffering of a single parameter,
   but the WG doesn't care about a max-message-size?  I don't get it.
- Changing the parameter order at this late date is okay unless anybody
   objects strongly.
- XML is verbose. Deal with it.  It's very possible that future commands
  or even current ones can cause the agent to process large amounts of
  data.
- The current parameter order is a result of considering the needs of the
  reader and writer, not the netconf engine implementor.
  That is our design focus.  In this case, parameter order isn't very 
universal,
  since there are many examples where the order is (copyTo, copyFrom).

> Lei


Andy

> --
> 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/>