Yea, I agree that its probably worth giving a little more latitude when
helping people with models. 8)
—Tom
> On May 10, 2016:12:55 PM, at 12:55 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Juergen,
>
> Of course, it is not confusing to you because you are in the box (vs. many of
> us are outside the box looking in).
>
> RFC 6020 doesn't say all identities have to have a sub-identity.
>
>
> My opinion only.
>
>
> Linda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 10:38 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org; 'netmod@ietf.org'; Thomas D. Nadeau
> Subject: Re: Can you remove the "Identity acl-base" defined in
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:07:30PM +0000, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Juergen,
>>
>> If "acl-base" has some content more than the comment (i.e. the description),
>> then it makes sense.
>>
>> The comments in the "identity ipv4-acl" is enough to describe the identity.
>> Same with the identity ipv6-acl.
>>
>> I find it is very confusing to have the recursive reference of identity (all
>> of them are simply the description).
>>
>
> I fail to see anything confusing here. Did you read the relevant sections of
> RFC 6020? What is unclear about identities and how they work?
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
