Lada,
Our original intention was to be able to define wild cards for source and
destination ports, but what you are suggesting is also an option and I agree
your suggestion is better, so adding presence statement to port containers, as
in example below, would be the right solution
grouping acl-transport-header-fields {
description
"Transport header fields";
container source-port-range {
presence “Enables source port range”;
description
"Inclusive range representing source ports to be used.
When only lower-port is present, it represents a single port.";
:
:
Have fixed it in the model and will update on Monday the draft
Dean
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the module ietf-packet-fields.yang in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-03
> still has the problem that I discovered in the previous revision:
>
> - Containers "source-port-range" and "destination-port-range" are both
> mandatory because the child leaf "lower-port" in each is mandatory. I
> think this wasn't intended. One solution would be to make both of them
> containers with presence.
>
> (see
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ShROtXH7aMNDs5HoIiTUa99X0JY)
>
> Even though the tree in sec. 3.1 displays "lower-port" as optional, in
> reality ietf-packet-fields.yang still has this leaf as "mandatory true;"
> in both "source-port-range" and "destination-port-range".
>
> Lada
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
