Juergen,

If "acl-base" has some content more than the comment (i.e. the description), 
then it makes sense.  

The comments in the "identity ipv4-acl" is enough to describe the identity. 
Same with the identity ipv6-acl. 

I find it is very confusing to have the recursive reference of identity (all of 
them are simply the description). 


My two cents, 

Linda 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:24 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; Thomas D. Nadeau
Subject: Re: Can you remove the "Identity acl-base" defined in 
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07

Linda,

the identityref type in YANG can be scoped to a base identity. This allows to 
restrict an indentityref to a certain set of identities.
See 6020 section 7.16.3 and section 9.10.5 for an example.

The ACL draft follows the model described in RFC 6020 and defines

     typedef acl-type {
       type identityref {
         base acl-base;
       }
     }

which restricts acl-type to any identity directly or indirectly derived from 
acl-base. If you remove acl-base, then acl-type could refer to any identity, 
which includes identities that have nothing to do with ACLs.

/js

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:43:38AM +0000, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Dear Authors:
> 
> The "acl-base" identity defined in your draft is empty (i.e. only with a 
> description) . Then you define "ipv4-acl" to be "acl-base". So basically you 
> inherited the comments twice.
> 
> identity acl-base {
> description
> "Base Access Control List type for all Access Control List type 
> identifiers."; } identity ipv4-acl { base acl:acl-base; description 
> "ACL that primarily matches on fields from the IPv4 header (e.g. IPv4 
> destination address) and layer 4 headers (e.g. TCP destination port). 
> An acl of type ipv4-acl does not contain matches on fields in the 
> ethernet header or the IPv6 header."; } identity ipv6-acl { base 
> acl:acl-base; description "ACL that primarily matches on fields from 
> the IPv6 header (e.g. IPv6 destination address) and layer 4 headers 
> (e.g. TCP destination port). An acl of type ipv6-acl does not contain 
> matches on fields in the ethernet header or the IPv4 header."; }
> 
> 
> You really don't need to define the "acl-base". What is the impact if 
> defining the "ipv4-acl" and "ipv6-acl" as follows?
> 
> identity ipv4-acl {
>    description
>    "ACL that primarily matches on fields from the IPv4 header
>    (e.g. IPv4 destination address) and layer 4 headers (e.g. TCP
>    destination port). An acl of type ipv4-acl does not contain
>    matches on fields in the ethernet header or the IPv6 header."; } 
> identity ipv6-acl {
>    description
>    "ACL that primarily matches on fields from the IPv6 header
>    (e.g. IPv6 destination address) and layer 4 headers (e.g. TCP
>    destination port). An acl of type ipv6-acl does not contain
>    matches on fields in the ethernet header or the IPv4 header."; }
> 
> 
> Thanks, Linda Dunbar

-- 
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

Reply via email to