Hi, Acee, Thanks for the follow-up, please see below inline with [Qiufang]. My co-authors may chime in if they wish.
> I have one major concern with this document. The YANG model adds > generalized schedule-based ACEs, yet this is not reflected in the YANG > model name, draft title, or abstract. This should at least be in a > separate YANG model and possibly in a separate draft since it appears > to have been added as an afterthought and, IMO, it is much more > important than the group-based access control. > [Qiufang] Note that this is not an afterthought design, it is there when the > draft was -00. We split the scheduling related definition into a separate I-D > to define common groupings (see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/), based on > the WG feedback. > I agree with you that the extension regarding scheduling is of great > importance, it addresses the requirement of “when to take effect”, together > with endpoint group based matching, which resolves the requirement of “for > whom to take effect”, they both constitutes the data model, separating them > could fragment the policy model. Hopefully this clarifies the intention. > To enhance the visibility of the scheduling feature, we have updated both the > abstract and introduction sections to reflect it explicitly. Will you also have a separate YANG model? For example, ietf-acl-ace-sched.yang? [Qiufang] As clarified, creating a separate model might introduce unnecessary fragmentation. Note we already use if-feature to make each augment conditional ("match-on-group" feature for endpoint group based augmentation and "schedule" feature for date and time based ACLs), this allows the potential for reuse that a separate model could provide, especially for implementations that wants to support time-based ACLs without the complexity of endpoint group matching. Thanks. > > 5. How did you decide on 64 octets for the group identifier string > maximum? > [Qiufang] As specified in the YANG module, the “group-id” is defined as a > string type with a length constraint of "1..64". This is to align with that. Right - I'm asking how you came up with 64 octets as a limit? [Qiufang] sorry for misunderstanding. 64 is not arbitrary, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950.html#section-6.2: "Implementations MUST support identifiers up to 64 characters in length and MAY support longer identifiers." And also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28#section-4.3: "All YANG identifiers in published modules MUST be between 1 and 64 characters in length." > > 6. In section 6, I would have expected the attribute to be the first > column in table 4. > [Qiufang] Review of RADIUS-related RFCs (e.g., RFC 8044, RFC 2865) reveals no > mandatory requirement that the attribute column be placed as the first column > in the table. Since the table focuses solely on the single attribute > "User-Access-Group-ID"—with no need to distinguish between multiple > attributes—placing the attribute column last does not obscure the key > information. > There are also some input received from RADEXT WG, see some previous > discussion at : > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/EWuvlu623PgapTPSB4s8LM6lc5M/. But English is normally left-to-right and one would expect the attribute to be in the first column. [Qiufang] Thanks, Acee. I don’t really have a strong feeling regarding this. While I checked some existing RFCs that register the RADIUS attribute type from "Radius Attribute Types", it seems that most of the RFCs put the attribute as the last column, e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5176#section-3.6, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8658#Table3, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5090#section-5, and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9445#table-1, perhaps aligning with existing RFCs would help improve consistency? Best Regards, Qiufang _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
