[Adding Cc to [email protected]] On 2018-02-26 14:24, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Per Hedeland <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> A customer of ours using one of the draft versions of the >> ietf-access-control-list module reported that it was not possible to >> configure an ethernet ace with type acl:eth-acl-type, due to the >> derived-from() in >> >> container eth { >> when "derived-from(../../../../type, " + >> "'acl:eth-acl-type')"; >> if-feature match-on-eth; >> uses pf:acl-eth-header-fields; >> description >> "Rule set that matches ethernet headers."; >> } >> >> evaluating to "false". I pointed out that this is correct behavior of >> our SW, since acl:eth-acl-type is not derived from acl:eth-acl-type, and >> it would need to be derived-from-or-self() in order to evaluate to >> "true". I also ventured a guess (not having followed the development of >> the acl model in detail) that the intent was that vendors should define >> their own identities, that actually *were* derived from acl:eth-acl-type >> (and ditto for all the other *-acl-type identities, of course). >> >> However I'm not at all sure that the guess is correct, and if so why >> this should be *enforced* by excluding the base identity. And having a >> look at the example in section 4.3 of draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-16, it >> seems to be doing exactly what our customer tried, alhough with >> ipv4-acl-type: >> >> <data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> >> <access-lists >> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-access-control-list"> >> <acl> >> <name>sample-ipv4-acl</name> >> <type>ipv4-acl-type</type> >> <aces> >> <ace> >> <name>rule1</name> >> <matches> >> <l3> >> <ipv4> >> <protocol>tcp</protocol> >> >> As far as I can see, this snippet is invalid for the model, since the >> 'ipv4' container has >> >> container ipv4 { >> when "derived-from(../../../../type, " + >> "'acl:ipv4-acl-type')"; >> >> - and ipv4-acl-type is *not* derived from ipv4-acl-type. (Of course >> there shouldn't be any <l3> element either, but that's another thing.) >> >> So, is it the case that the derived-from()s should actually be >> derived-from-or-self()s, or is the example wrong? > > This has to do with the irreflexivity property of identity derivation, > which is, in my view, an unnecessary complication. It would be simpler > but sufficient to define derivation as a reflexive relation, and have > only one "derived-from()" XPath function.
Be that as it may, it is obviously not what RFC 7950 says. > Identities that are considered "abstract" should not be instantiated, and > then derived-from() and derived-from-or-self() give the same result. So I guess your take is that the *-acl-type identities derived from acl:acl-base in the ietf-access-control-list module should be considered "abstract", and thus the example should not use ipv4-acl-type for the 'type' leaf, but instead some other identity derived from acl:ipv4-acl-type. Do the authors agree? --Per > Lada > >> >> --Per Hedeland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
