Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

Hi Dean, If you make this a list of heterogeneous IPv4 header fields, how will you constrain specification to only one field of each type? For example, one source address? Existing implementations do not support multiples and generate all permutations (given multiple specifications of each field

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 (until Oct 5, 2016)

> On Nov 13, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: > > Adrian, > > Sorry for not replying earlier. Your email fell through the cracks. > >> On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Adrian Pan > > wrote: >> >> I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 and I am con

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

Dean and friends, I'd just like to add one additional point. This draft has been in numerous forms of WGLC for a while now. Can we please agree that as a proposed standard we have passed the point where perfect is the enemy of good? Some of us need this work finished. Thanks, Eliot On 1

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

It's already useful to me. And we've seen other people say it is useful to them. If you need something specific, say so now please, but otherwise let's please move along. Eliot On 11/18/16 3:07 PM, David Bannister wrote: > This draft should not move forward, it needs more work to be useful. >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

Hurry?! Please look at the history of this draft. On 11/18/16 3:27 PM, David Bannister wrote: > If you are in a hurry use your vendor model. > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:24 PM Eliot Lear > wrote: > > It's already useful to me. And we've seen other people say it is