(second try) There were no changes to the model so my concerns remain the same. Augmentation is not a scalable solution when dealing with a mutli-vendor or in some instances a multi-business-unit environment. The 'newco' example in the draft illustrates this problem. The IETF produces a 'standard' for an ACL draft which is so sparse in nature that it must be augmented by each vendor. In the best case this gives me a unique model per vendor because we know the vendors are not going to get together to define the missing pieces. The vendors will use a variety of mechanisms to complete the model from using a script to build their models from source code, handling the missing pieces as arbitrary code (anyxml), or everything as a string. Then there is the worse case where a vendor has no internal standardization (you know who you are) and their own product lines will not align into a common model. The object here, for me, is to get to a single model for all vendors barring a unique feature that belongs to one vendor in which case augmentation is acceptable.
Could you add to this in the future and rev up the RFC? Sure. However, I am not sure what value that brings to the community. In its current form I would not ask any of my vendors to implement this draft. Instead I would push them towards the OpenConfig ACL model. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: > Hi David, > > > > Can you please confirm that the additional examples address your concern? > And, if not, please > > explain if there is any reason why what you're looking for couldn't be > added or augmented in > > in the future. > > > > Thanks, > > Kent // shepherd > > > > On 3/13/17, 5:57 AM, "netmod on behalf of Dean Bogdanovic" < > netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ivand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Here is the new version of the ACL draft. Since December and some > additional comments about the ACL model, I spoke with many operators and > how they use ACLs. I have also received lot of detailed ACL configurations. > In most cases, the model is easily adapted to the current use cases in > operations. But to answer the comments, the authors have added a detailed > example in the addendum section how the model can be extended and how this > model can be used. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dean > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *internet-dra...@ietf.org > > *Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt* > > *Date: *March 13, 2017 at 10:52:38 AM GMT+1 > > *To: *<netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, "Kiran Koushik" <kkous...@cisco.com>, > "Lisa Huang" <lyihuan...@gmail.com>, "Dean Bogdanovic" <ivand...@gmail.com>, > "Dana Blair" <dbl...@cisco.com>, "Kiran Agrahara Sreenivasa" < > kkous...@cisco.com> > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt > has been successfully submitted by Dean Bogdanovic and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model > Revision: 10 > Title: Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model > Document date: 2017-03-13 > Group: netmod > Pages: 32 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- > ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- > netmod-acl-model/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10 > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf- > netmod-acl-model-10 > > Abstract: > This document describes a data model of Access Control List (ACL) > basic building blocks. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced > with finalized values at the time of publication. This note > summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. Please note > that no other RFC Editor instructions are specified anywhere else in > this document. > > Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in > progress. Please apply the following replacements > > o "XXXX" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft. > > o Revision date in model (Oct 12, 2016) needs to get updated with > the date the draft gets approved. The date also needs to get > reflected on the line with <CODE BEGINS>. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
