Just on this point:
On 25.09.18 20:35, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: >> That’s do bad. However, the document must at least say that it’s >> scope is restricted to TCP and UDP only and it would also be nice to >> reason why that restriction is and what would need to be done to >> extend it in future. > > To the contrary. The model is *not* restricted to TCP and UDP. In > Section 2, the document states that: > > ACL implementations in every device may vary greatly in terms of the > filter constructs and actions that they support. Therefore this > draft proposes a model that can be augmented by standard extensions > and vendor proprietary models. > > > It is a different matter that it has chosen not to support SCTP and > DCCP. That is because implementations today have not felt the market > need to add support for those protocols. But that does not prevent > anyone from adding support for them. > > As far as an example for how the model can be extended in the future, > see Appendix A - Extending ACL model examples. It's important to not try to boil the ocean, and this model is already boiling a rather large river. There's room for someone else to do more work. I know I did ;-) Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
