Hi,
Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Einar, Jon, Mahesh,
>
> My gut instinct is that making this a grouping might not be a good
> idea:
>
> 1) If somebody updates the core ACL model, will then need to check
> that anyone using it should be similarly updated (unless they use
> import-by-revision).
>
> 2) Does it make sense to define ACLs in separate places. Would like
> be more simple if ACLs were defined in a central place and then just
> referenced by other protocols as required.
>
> 3) I think that groupings are probably overused and I think that they
> can detract from the readability of the model. (I regard the
> OpenConfig YANG models as an extreme example of this, where it is
> necessary to compile the modules together to figure out where
> everything fits together).
I agree with all three statements. The current acl data model has a
top-level grouping "interface-acl" which probably is not intended to
be "exported". I think ot should be moved into the
"attachment-points" container, in order to make it local.
If the entire access-list container is defined as a goruping, and is
used in multiple places, how are the multiple interface
attachment-points handled?
/martin
>
> Having said that, I don't think that this issue is important enough to
> have a long discussion about ...
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On 08/01/2018 15:02, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) wrote:
> > Since this is a 7-line change, I see no harm in it if no-one objects?
> > Mahesh has the token for rolling in updates discussed just prior to
> > the end of 2017.
> >
> > Here’s a possible diff:
> >
> > $ git diff -b
> > diff --git a/src/yang/ietf-access-control-list.yang
> > b/src/yang/ietf-access-control-list.yang
> > index 4d698c9..b1a173f 100644
> > --- a/src/yang/ietf-access-control-list.yang
> > +++ b/src/yang/ietf-access-control-list.yang
> > @@ -402,6 +402,10 @@ module ietf-access-control-list {
> > /*
> > * Configuration data nodes
> > */
> > + grouping access-lists-top {
> > + description
> > + "Grouping to allow reuse of access lists container elsewhere.";
> > +
> > container access-lists {
> > description
> > "This is a top level container for Access Control Lists.
> > @@ -576,6 +580,9 @@ module ietf-access-control-list {
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > + }
> > + uses access-lists-top;
> > +
> > augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
> > description
> > "Augment interfaces to allow ACLs to be associated in either
> > the
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Einar
> >
> >
> >> On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:53, Jon Shallow <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi There,
> >> I appreciate that this is late to the table, but is it possible to set
> >> up “access-lists” as a “grouping” in the YANG data model so that
> >> “access-lists” can be included by “uses” in a higher level YANG data
> >> model?
> >> I have raised this as issue #22
> >> athttps://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/issues
> >> Regards
> >> Jon
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
