Unless someone disagrees, with a good reason, I am going to go ahead and close this issue.
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > My opinion is absolutely not. Past attempts to mix forwarding and routing > policy have been, at best, very confusing. This issue should be removed from > section 8 and closed. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com > <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> > Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM > To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> > Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4 > > Created issue #4 in github <https://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/issues/4> > as "Should this model include route-policy definition as defined in > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model?” > > with the following description: > > The title says it all. The only note is that the draft in question has > expired, so it is not clear what the status of those definitions are. > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
