+1 I am not co-author of this model, but I had read this draft. I believe this model can be easily augmented and flexible reused: The “choice/case” structure can help to insert new “condition” or “action” attributes into the ACL model; And the “ietf-packet-fields” module which contains several reusable groupings also provide a convenient way to derive specific models.
Best Regards! -Michael 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dean Bogdanovic 发送时间: 2016年11月24日 7:18 收件人: Andy Bierman 抄送: netmod@ietf.org 主题: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016) As draft author, the model was designed to be easily augmented for matches and actions, so that each vendor and user can adapt it to their needs. Dean On Nov 23, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote: Hi, I have a general comment, related to Benoit's request to get YANG modules done. Augment is your friend. Use it. YANG 1.1 even allows conditionally mandatory nodes to be added, so there are no excuses for not publishing base modules that can be augmented later. IMO, adding new features in WGLC should not even be considered. Andy On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: If you could just point out the general features you are using in your configs that are not present in the base model. I know you mentioned TCP options matching. With respect to the augmentations, they don’t have to be vendor specific. Some advanced ACL functions such as conditional ACLs could be provided in standard model augmentations in future modules. Thanks, Acee From: David Bannister <d...@netflix.com<mailto:d...@netflix.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com<mailto:l...@cisco.com>>, Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com<mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016) I'm open to the idea given ample time. On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi David, From: David Bannister <d...@netflix.com<mailto:d...@netflix.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Cc: Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com<mailto:l...@cisco.com>>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com<mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016) Here are my issues with the ACL draft as it stands today from a high level, vs. calling out every missing field. Although I’m not an author of this YANG model, I’m the author of others and I can say from experience that it would be infinitely more productive for you to list the specific fields and corresponding use cases as opposed to a subjective high-level critique. That way, these can be incorporated or, at least, we can have the discussion as whether or not they belong in the base model. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
