Jason, After looking at the document and the model, it is also about having metadata grouping in the model. If you want to have metadata grouping in the model, then you have to have something inside and then input-interface questions comes up. If you don’t have to have metadata grouping in the base model, everything is easy.
I believe this is the right question Dean > On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA) > <jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > Just to clarify -> the main question posed in the WG meeting was about the > input-interface match criteria. From the meeting minutes: > > Chairs: call for if interface should be in base: > 6 prefer NOT having it in the doc at all > 5 prefer having it in, but as a feature > 2 prefer having it in the doc as required > > Maybe we should get agreement on what to do about input-interface (on the > list) first and then we can figure out what to do about the metadata grouping. > > Matching on basic IPv4/IPv4/MAC header fields is common functionality. But > having that input-interface match on metadata in the core model is out of > place. It should be left to further extension drafts or vendor specific > augmentations (along with whatever other metadata might be useful or > vendor-specific). Many major implementations do not support matching on > input-interface (Cisco IOS-XR, Nokia SR OS, Brocade, others). The typical > way to associate ACLs and Interfaces is by assigning an ACL to an interface > as shown in section A.3. of the ACL draft. There is some discussion of this > on the NETMOD thread “Remove input-interface (metadata) from > netmod-acl-model-07 ?”. > > Regards, > Jason > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT Dean Bogdanovic > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:12 > To: netmod WG > Subject: [netmod] input Interface match > > As the action item from the netmod WG and, hopefully, last open item in the > ACL draft is the leaf input interface in the metadata grouping > > grouping metadata { > description > "Fields associated with a packet which are not in > the header."; > leaf input-interface { > type if:interface-ref { > require-instance false; > } > description > "Packet was received on this interface."; > } > } > } > > > Here are two questions: > One > Do want to have a metadata grouping in the basic ACL model? If yes, we have > to put in some leafs in there. There are implementations which use metadata > as match condition > > If we agree that metadata grouping is not needed in the basic model, then the > authors would remove the grouping from the model and I believe that no more > discussion is needed on this point > > Dean
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
