[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: action RPC I-D



OK, I can agree with that.

But still I feel that the data model is not a bad place to put this access control data. If we use individual new operations for such vendor specific actions instead of generic <action> where do you put this data? If you put it in a document describing the related capability that will be unusable for machines.
Balazs

Andy Bierman wrote:
Balazs Lengyel wrote:
Hello,
You are right, we need access control.

For this reason each action defined in the data model should be defined as read/write/disturb-traffic. read: it only reads configuration and state data and doesn't effect the traffic
write: it writes configuration data, but does not disturb the traffic
disturb-traffic: means it can do anything.


I prefer these well-known hierarchical enumerations for max-access:

   read-only       (read or notify)
   read-write      (all operations except create & delete)
   read-create     (all access)


Andy


One can debate that these are the good categories for access control. Still the basic statement is that for each action defined in the data model you need to specify it's access properties in the data model as well.
Balazs

Andy Bierman wrote:
Your access control model should be more robust than
simply allowing user X to do anything called <action>.
I don't see what benefit an intermediate SW component
can realize if an extra generic container is added to <rpc>.





--
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com

--
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/>