Hi Joe, et al., > 1) It is not clear to me why there is any dependence of the fb-rib > data model on an eca data model. While supa does allow for > policy model to be sent directly to the router, it also allows many > other cases.
Exactly. More particularly, in scanning this draft, I fail to see how this is an accepted definition of ECA. In particular, there doesn't seem to be any event in the rule definition. Hence, I would suggest that you add wording that says that this is one of many ways to build such a mapping. > 2) The approach with the supa eca data model is still under > development. Absolutely agree. In particular, draft-chen was the first attempt at trying to conceptualize what such a data model should look like. > Having said that, the material in there is intended to be very > general. IFF you mean the SUPA info model, then absolutely (otherwise, it has failed in its primary mission of providing an extensible framework to define policies). IFF you mean draft-chen, then I think it agrees with the spirit of what you said. I think that we need to discuss how to map from an info model to a data model in more detail before we come to any conclusions of its efficacy. > From what I understand, there should be no difficulty in > refining the action side of that model to actions which affect > the fb-rib in ways that are consistent with the fb-dib data model. +1. In fact, the whole point of SUPA is to provide different ways of forming an ECA policy rule to meet different demands of the user. More particularly, at IETF94, you (Sue) assumed that an ECA policy rule was made up of Event, Condition, and Action objects. While that is certainly one alternative, there are others as well. In addition, please note that the presence of these objects is NOT sufficient to build an ECA policy rule (e.g., the Event object needs an attribute (or multiple attributes) to be compared to something in order to determine if the event CLAUSE evaluates to TRUE or not. regards, John On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > I think there are two issues here. > > 1) It is not clear to me why there is any dependence of the fb-rib data > model on an eca data model. While supa does allow for policy model to be > sent directly to the router, it also allows many other cases. > > 2) The approach with the supa eca data model is still under development. > Having said that, the material in there is intended to be very general. > From what I understand, there should be no difficulty in refining the > action side of that model to actions which affect the fb-rib in ways that > are consistent with the fb-dib data model. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 1/4/16 2:01 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > >> This model provides a Event-Condition-Action (ECA) policy model. >> The I2RS FB-RIB yang data model utilizes this model, but to my knowledge >> the >> Netmod or netconf has not adopted an ECA policy model to >> parallel the ACL model. >> >> Chen and co-authors have created the model: >> >> draft-chen-supa-eca-data-model-05.txt >> >> But it does not align with this yang model or seem sufficient to >> support the FB-RIB information model. At IETF 94, >> I presented a discussion of the issues I found with the >> draft-chen-supa-eca-data-model-05.txt, but it has not been updated. >> We would appreciate feedback on this version of yang model. >> >> <i2rs Chair hat on> >> In my role as I2RS chair, I2RS needs to make progress soon on the >> I2RS FB-RIB data model. We would appreciate your aid. >> <i2rs chair hat off> >> >> Sue >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 12:04 PM >> To: Susan Hares; Qin Wu; Russ White >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Susan Hares and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Name: draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model >> Revision: 03 >> Title: An Information Model for Basic Network Policy and Filter >> Rules >> Document date: 2016-01-04 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 30 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model/ >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03 >> Diff: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model-03 >> >> Abstract: >> This document contains the Basic Network Policy and Filters (BNP IM) >> Data Model which provides a policy model that support an ordered list >> of match-condition-action (aka event-condition-action (ECA)) for >> multiple layers (interface, L1-L4, application) and other factors >> (size of packet, time of day). The actions allow for setting actions >> (QOS and other), decapsulation, encapsulation, plus forwarding >> actions. The policy model can be used with the I2RS filter-based >> RIB. >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Supa mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa > -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
