> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Ebben Aries <e...@juniper.net> wrote: > > > On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other is >> ietf-access-control-list module, >> I am wondering whether ietf-packet-fields module can be defined in more >> generic way that can be applied to other modules defined somewhere else? >> e.g., in ietf-packet-fields module, acl-ip-header-fields grouping is >> defined, I am wondering whether prefix "acl-" can be removed to make it more >> generic? > > What you'll likely run into here is that the header fields defined in > acl-*-header-fields are more or less the lowest common denominators for > the application of "acl" - Not all header fields are defined here.
Correct, it was lowest common denominator. > > I suppose an approach could be to define generic groupings of all header > fields and create per application groupings, referencing what is > supported with appropriate constraints, etc… > Not sure what that buys > here since you're likely to have overlap but not complete parity between > the different consumers of these packet fields. The ietf-packet-fields could be reused in QoS for matching and in some vendors case, they are using access list for matching. So it is consistent naming for match conditions. The QoS design team mapped out there own match conditions. > > /ebben > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
