Hi Suresh, Is the model usable as is? Can it be augmented for other protocols?
I think the answer to both the questions is yes. I do not see why then can requests like yours not be handled as separate drafts. What is the reason to hold up this draft this late in the game? Cheers. > On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > Thanks for your quick reply. Please find comments inline. > >> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Suresh, >> >>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> This document is missing ACL handling for ICMPv6 (RFC4443) completely. As >>> the >>> ICMP types and codes are different for ICMP and ICMPv6 I think this model >>> should be included to cover ICMPv6. >> >> I understand that there are many protocols that fall into such a criteria. >> As has already been discussed, we are offering the minimum set of protocols >> for which there is a demand, while giving the option to extend it through >> augmentations of the base model. > > I understand where you are coming from but ICMPv6 is not just another > protocol. It is a core protocol in the IPv6 protocol suite. Do you know of > any systems that support IPv6 acls but not support ICMPv6 there? > >> >> Let us not boil the ocean. As it is, this draft has been in the works for >> more than 4 years. > > This is a very clear and bounded request (i.e. not boiling the ocean). I do > not think this will be significant amount of work. If you do feel otherwise, > I will be glad to revisit my position > > Regards > Suresh _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
