On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:34 AM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Rob, Mahesh, > > Thanks for reading. > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Ranga, >> >> Presumably another choice would to keep ACLs defined in one place (i.e. >> no grouping required), augment with ACL model with your extra MUD + other >> mgmt data, and then have a reference to that ACL from your model. >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> > > In the case of MUD ( which is just a use case driving this need ), there > are local references from MUD to the ACL. MUD itself augments the ACL > model. > > Augmentation would make (logical and design) sense if you were adding > nodes that are in some way related to the ACL itself. > > If I wanted to Augment ACL with something that is not directly ACL > relevant then Augmentation makes less sense to me from a design perspective > (lets say I wanted to define a new YANG model that includes the ACL with > some other system-relavant meta-data that has nothing to do with ACLs but > is needed by the system in order to install an ACL). > > Making access-lists into a grouping and then using it in a container does > not alter the ACL model as it currently stands but allows designers to use > the ACL model with either augmentation or inclusion in other YANG models. > Hence it improves the usability of the ACL model without altering the > semantics of the current model. It is just a re-structuring but it helps > the implementer. > > Loosely coupled tables should use leafref. The main concern of the NETMOD WG should be the usability of the primary solution. > > Regards, > > Ranga > > Andy > >> On 02/11/2017 14:50, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Ranga, >>> >>> Is there a reason why you do not want to consider augmenting the model, >>> particularly since you seem to want to use the entire model? >>> >> >> >> Yes. I want to include other metadata (specifically MUD + other >> management data modeled using YANG) associated with the ACL in a container >> in my own model. For this I want to import access-lists from the ACL YANG >> model but as it currently stands, I can't. >> >> With the way it has been defined (i.e. as a container and not a >> grouping), I cannot include it in another YANG model. It would be perfect >> if the access-lists could be made into a grouping as suggested. Nothing >> else needs to change as far as I am concerned. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> >> Ranga. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> > On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:39 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Re-posted from OPSAWG list : >>> > >>> > >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > In the file >>> > >>> > [email protected] >>> > >>> > I see that access-lists is directly defined as a collection. >>> > >>> > >>> > May I suggest making a grouping (say access-lists-grouping) and use a >>> "uses" statement in access-lists. >>> > >>> > The use-case for this change request - I would like to use the >>> grouping in another YANG model using a "uses" statement. >>> > >>> > Thanks in advance for considering it. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Ranga. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > M. Ranganathan >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > netmod mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> M. Ranganathan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing >> [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> >> >> > > > -- > M. Ranganathan > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
