Like I said, I respect Mahesh’s input as original author. It’s hard to disagree with that. That said, I think the original RFC8519 is useful on its own, and these proposed extensions add value that may not be needed by everyone. I’d much rather see this new work progress rather than opening up RFC8519 to more comments.
Joe From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 08:06 To: NETMOD Group <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: [netmod] ACL Extensions Draft The question in the WG for the ACL Extensions draft was whether the draft should be an augmentation of the base ACL model, or a -bis of RFC 8519. Lou brought some clarity by saying that if the base model could exist by itself without these extensions, then it should be treated as an augmentation, but if there are fundamental additions to the base model that should have existed from day 1, it should be a -bis. Looking at the changes being proposed by the draft, I see a combination of extensions, e.g. defined-sets, and changes that are fairly fundamental to the usage of ACL model. I am sorry that we missed them in RFC 8519. Examples of that include definitions for ipv4-fragment, ipv6-fragment, mpls etc. It is for those fundamental definitions, my personal opinion (and as author of RFC 8519) is that it should be -bis. Cheers. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
