Rang, The ACL model is currently dated ietf-access-control-l...@2017-09-12.yang.
Eliot On 9/18/17 5:59 PM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > I tried compiling the YANG model. I had to make the following corrections: > > > /* augment "/acl:access-lists/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" */ > augment > "/acl:access-lists/acl:acl/acl:access-list-entries/acl:ace/acl:matches" > > > /*augment > "/acl:access-lists/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches/acl:tcp-acl" */ > augment > "/acl:access-lists/acl:acl/acl:access-list-entries/acl:ace/acl:matches/acl:tcp-acl" > > > I am basing this on ietf-access-control-l...@2017-06-16.yang, which I > believe to be the latest draft of the ietf-access-control-list > > Perhaps I am mistaken (in which case please correct me). > > Thanks, > > Ranga > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com > <mailto:l...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > This update addresses both of Benoit's issues: > > * The dates on the YANG files are now consistent. > * There is a statement of conformance as to which features are > expected to be implemented. > * One or two small editorials. > > Note that the draft DOES produce a yanglint warning which is > expected. This is because yanglint does not know what to expect > in terms of what features are implemented in the ACL model. Thus > the above statement. > > Eliot > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> > To: Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com <mailto:l...@cisco.com>>, Ralph > Droms <rdr...@gmail.com <mailto:rdr...@gmail.com>>, Dan Romascanu > <droma...@gmail.com <mailto:droma...@gmail.com>> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 03:27:48 -0700 > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10.txt > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10.txt > has been successfully submitted by Eliot Lear and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud > Revision: 10 > Title: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification > Document date: 2017-09-15 > Group: opsawg > Pages: 53 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10.txt > <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10.txt> > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud/> > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10> > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10> > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10 > <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-10> > > Abstract: > This memo specifies a component-based architecture for manufacturer > usage descriptions (MUD). The goal of MUD is to provide a > means for > Things to signal to the network what sort of access and network > functionality they require to properly function. The initial focus > is on access control. Later work can delve into other aspects. > > This memo specifies two YANG modules, IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP > options, an > LLDP TLV, a URL suffix specification, an X.509 certificate > extension > and a means to sign and verify the descriptions. > > > > > 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 <http://tools.ietf.org>. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> > > > > > -- > M. Ranganathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
