> On Jan 22, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thanks, it doesn't get much more concrete then a pull request ;) > > Okay, so from a chair/shepherd perspective, can folks please consider this > update to -15 as the LC solution to removing the open issue Juergen found in > the draft? > > As a contributor, I don't think the name of the groupings or their > description statements should allude to something that doesn't exist yet. > Rather than e.g. "source-or-group", could it be instead something like > "source-type"? Also, the update seems to be for both when specifying > networks as well as when specifying port-ranges, but the original issue (see > below) only mentioned addresses - is the pull-request actually what's needed > and the description of the issue in Section 8 is incomplete? > > 8. Open Issues > > o The current model does not support the concept of "containers" > used to contain multiple addresses per rule entry.
I have updated the description of the issue on GitHub to refer to IP addresses and ports, the two thing object groups are used for, and removed the Open Issues section in the draft. The PR(#23) has the capability to add this in the future. Thanks. > > Thanks, > Kent > > > On 1/21/18, 12:32 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanand...@gmail.com > <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > >> On Jan 20, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net >> <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> I'm okay not adding the ability to reference an external rulebase now, or >> are you saying that you'd also like to defer priming the YANG model now so >> that it can be added later in a backwards compatible manner? >> >> If you plan to prime the YANG model so that the ability to reference an >> external rulebase can added later in a backwards compatible manner, can you >> please send a concrete proposal to the list so that we can better understand >> the impact? >> >> My expectation is that it merely adds a 'choice' statement around the >> existing rulebase container, thereby enabling something other than a >> rulebase container to exist some day in the future. > > That is correct. The proposal is to add a ‘choice’ statement in parts of the > model that will allow an external rulebase to be added in the future as > another case statement. > > Here is the concrete proposal of what those changes will look like: > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/pull/23 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_netmod-2Dwg_acl-2Dmodel_pull_23&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=TTcVNmD-pP5Jg3P0iLLmNN-oThtmLiDD-i-cfmml-d4&s=9amd15fEoT406blmduaLuqGo7l1Mi0jt86nidbOJ2fU&e=> > > Thanks > > >> >> If the addition is indeed just this, then I don't believe that it materially >> changes the ACL model and therefore can be added as a LC comment. Of >> course, the WG will want to review the addition for correctness, but >> otherwise should be alright. >> >> Thanks, >> Kent // co-chair and shepherd >> >> >> ===== original message ===== >> >> Kent, >> >> I have not heard a strong requirement to have the open issue fixed in this >> version of the RFC. We would therefore like to defer it to a bis document. >> >> I will wait for the LC to complete, and update the draft to address all the >> comments received during the LC. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net >>> <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> H Mahesh, >>> >>> >>>>> - There is an open issue in the document (section 8) - are we going >>>>> to resolve that during WG last call or is this a leftover? >>>> >>>> This will be resolved in the next version of the module. It is >>>> documented under Issues tab in GitHub. Should we remove it from >>>> the draft? >>> >>> Most of Juergen's comments are editorial in nature and can truly be handled >>> as part of the LC process, but this open issue has me worried, as it may >>> result in a significant technical change. >>> >>> What will it take to close this open issue? Is it just a matter of the >>> getting the WG to agree that it's not an issue, or do we already know that >>> it is a real issue and only the solution is pending? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kent >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod