On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:20:34PM +0630, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Kristian, > > I hear you. What I am providing is the rational for the current design.
Ok, thank you! That is valuable to me so please don't stop :) > I would like to hear from others in the WG. We have been > reviewing this draft for the last couple of years, and we are > now at the tail end of the LC. Believe me, I have no intention of stopping this draft. I just want to improve it. I actually wanted to start using it earlier this year but found the structure so unwieldy to work with that I eventually gave up and instead decided to try and improve the model. It took a wee bit longer than I intended but here I am. For the interested, I wanted to build a YANG translation service in NCS (now Cisco NSO) that could translate ACLs from one format into the native format of four different vendors. I currently keep feature parity across four different platforms and doing that for something like ACLs is highly error prone. > I would really like to see this draft move forward, > particularly since it is not broken. I want to have a standard ACL model too. I am not complaining just for the sake of complaining, it is because I found the structure unnatural or otherwise difficult to use. I will try my best to not just criticise but instead provide actual suggestions on how to improve things. Kind regards, Kristian. -- Kristian Larsson KLL-RIPE +46 704 264511 [email protected] _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
