The last call period for this draft has ended. Thank you to all that
responded. Given the responses received, my co-chair and I believe that the
draft is ready to move forward. I will begin the shepherd write-up shortly.
In parallel, prompted by a conversation I had this morning, I’m wondering about
the YANG module’s use of the config false nodes ‘acl-oper-data’ and
‘ace-oper-data’. In particular, are the lifetimes of these nodes always the
same as the configured nodes? - is there any need to support reporting opstate
for system-generated acls?
Thanks,
Kent (as shepherd)
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<kwat...@juniper.net>
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct
27, 2016)
This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document:
Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09
Please indicate your support or concerns by Thursday, October 27, 2016.
We are particularly interested in statements of the form:
* I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 and found no issues.
* I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 and found the following
issues: ...
As well as:
* I have implemented the data model in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09.
* I am implementing the data model in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09.
* I am considering to implement the data model in
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09.
* I am not considering to implement the data model in
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09.
Thank you,
NETMOD WG Chairs
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
