Eliot,
I posted a technical review of the ACL draft on December 11th to the
list since the document was send to WG last call. I believe the I-D
has technical issues that need to be resolved. I am not going to
repeat my technical comments.
Note I have been one of the _few_ who actually read the I-D when it
was sent to WG last call. And yes, I believe a standard in this area
needs to be highly extensible (so we better get this right) and I
believe it needs to be resonably match widely deployed open source
packet filters and not just Juniper and Cisco gear.
/js
PS: I reduced the CC: list to the NETMOD WG since this is where the
work is supposed to take place.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:16:47PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Skipping down...
>
> On 1/19/16 5:48 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > While we can have a lengthy debate about terminology, I think more
> > important is to get functionality right.
>
> Agree. We are arguing over labels that aren't generally meant for
> humans ANYWAY.
>
> >>> I am talking about the modularity of the base model, I do not see how
> >>> the cited thread relates to this.
> >> Among the vendors, ace-eth, ace-ipv4 and ace-ipv6 are always supported. I
> >> appreciate your input, but we did this design choice as design team and
> >> went forward with it. Also, the YANG models are not set in stone. I
> >> definitely see models evolving.
> > My main concern is that we need to get the extensibility of the model
> > right. One way to make sure we achieved this goal is to actually treat
> > everything as an extension of the core model (this forces us to get
> > the extensibility right). This is essentially what we did with the
> > routing data model and the interfaces data model.
> >
> >
> While I agree I am also becoming concerned that we may be going down a
> rat hole from which we may not return. The above thread snippets have
> lost so much context that one cannot divine what it is we are arguing
> over. While a design team certainly does not represent consensus, can
> we please at least argue over what it is we are supposed to be arguing
> over? With regard to this model, I could imagine innumerable ways to
> represent an access list. The deference due the people who wrote this
> stuff out is at least to recognize that. If you are going to propose an
> alternative at this point, please do it the old fashion way: send text.
>
> Eliot
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
