Hi Med, Thanks for addressing some of my comments. Please see inline.
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 12:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, all, > > Thank you for the review and comments. We just posed > draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-04. > > Please see more context inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> De la > part de Mahesh Jethanandani > Envoyé : mardi 5 décembre 2023 23:09 > À : Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> > Cc : NETMOD Group <netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>; NetMod WG > Chairs <netmod-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-cha...@ietf.org>> > Objet : Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-03 > > Hi, > > I do support this work, as it is much needed, and would like to see it > progress. However, I do believe that the document needs to undergo a revision > to qualify for LC. Some of the comments are editorial or minor, and can be > addressed easily, but others are not. They should all be addressed for the WG > to call the document ready. > > - The Security Considerations section has both the read/write nodes and the > read-only nodes as empty (or marked as TBC, which I imagine stands for To Be > Completed). This needs to be filled out, or if no nodes are worth any > security considerations, it should be stated so, and why. > > [Med] ACK. We don’t repeat what is already in 8519 but focus on key additions > in the spec: https://github.com/boucadair/enhanced-acl-netmod/pull/65/files > <https://github.com/boucadair/enhanced-acl-netmod/pull/65/files> [mj] Thanks for updating the section. s/setf/set/ s/Simialr/Similar/ and in other place s/modelled/modeled/ > > - Isn’t the YANG model normative portion of the document? Isn’t what this > document all about? Why is it then in the Appendix? > > [Med] We are using a script to generate the IANA modules + we are actually > following this part from the 8407bis: > > It is RECOMMENDED to include the URL from where to retrieve the > recent version of the module. When a script is used, the Internet- > Draft that defines an IANA-maintained module SHOULD include an > appendix with the initial full version of the module. Including such > an appendix in pre-RFC versions is meant to assess the correctness of > the outcome of the supplied script. The authors MUST include a note > to the RFC Editor requesting that the appendix be removed before > publication as RFC and that RFC IIII is replaced with the RFC number > that is assigned to the document. Initial versions of IANA- > maintained modules that are published in RFCs may be misused despite > the appropriate language to refer to the IANA registry to retrieve > the up-to-date module. [mj] I am not clear on what happens to the IANA module once the draft is published as an RFC based on what you cite from 8407bis. The document states that the reference to “RFC IIII” is replaced with the actual RFC number, but it also says that the Appendix be removed. What happens to the initial version of the module itself? Is it removed if the Appendix is removed? Or does it remain in the Appendix as an initial version, with language that indicates that the IANA registry should be used to retrieve the most up-to-date model? The language in Section 1.1 item (2) does not help. The above text from 8407bis needs to be explicit on what happens to the initial version of the module as part of the RFC publication. > > - Why is the Section titled "Initial Version of the The ICMPv4 Types > IANA-Maintained Module”, when the model in question is > "iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang > <mailto:iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang>”? > [Med] This was a typo. Fixed. [mj] You fixed it another location. However, I still see the following in the -04 version of the document. B.2. Initial Version of the The ICMPv4 Types IANA-Maintained Module <CODE BEGINS> file "iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang" module iana-icmpv6-types { > > - ‘defined-sets’ and ‘aliases’ have been defined in a the separate model > ‘ietf-acl-enh’. Are these sets and aliases defined to be used outside of ACL? > If that is the case then having them outside the ‘ietf-access-control-list’ > model makes sense. Otherwise, almost everything in the ‘ietf-acl-enh’ is an > augmentation of the model defined in RFC 8519, as stated in the Introduction > of the document > > [Med] These are defined to be consumed for ACL policies. > > > "The YANG module in this document is solely based on augmentations to the ACL > YANG module defined in [RFC8519].” > > [Med] The intent was to highlight that we are not using a bis approach. > Tweaked the paragraph that includes that text for better clarity. [mj] I think it already clear that this model an augmentation and not a bis. A bis is when you take the original document and edit it for updates, and this is clearly not that. I actually agree with your above statement in the Introduction that you had, about the module being solely an enhancement of the ACL YANG model, and was surprised to see it taken out. The point I was making was that just like what you have done with augmenting "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches” to add ‘choice payload’, ‘choice alias’ etc, you could have augmented “/acl:acls” to add ‘defined-sets’ and ‘aliases’. Right now, as is, the ietf-acl-enh module sits on the root of the config tree, with no relation to the ACL model, other than references to it from within the ACL model. If the definitions in ietf-acl-enh are to be consumed by the ACL model only, why not augment the ACL model (as shown below) to add them in the ACL tree? > > If that is the case I see no reason why those containers should not be > augmentations into the same model, as in > > augment “/acl:acls” { > container defined-sets { > …. > } > > container aliases { > … > } > } > > > - I just pulled down the latest version (-03) of the draft, and ran into this > error. > > $ pyang ietf-acl-...@2022-10-24.yang <mailto:ietf-acl-...@2022-10-24.yang> > iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang > <mailto:iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang>:1: error: unexpected latest > revision "2023-04-28" in iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang > <mailto:iana-icmpv6-ty...@2020-09-25.yang>, should be "2020-09-25”. > > [Med] Fixed. Thanks. > > - Section 3.4. TCP Flags Handling. The document states that. > > "Clients that support both 'flags-bitmask' and 'flags' matching fields MUST > NOT set these fields in the same request.”. > > Can the model have a must statement to prevent this from being configured > inadvertently? > > [Med] We don’t see how to do that with a must statement, hence the normative > language in the narrative text. [mj] How about something like must “not(/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches/acl:l4/acl:tcp/acl:flags)” { error-message “Either flags or flags-bitmask should be configured, but not both.”; } under ‘flags-bitmask’? If you are feeling adventurous, you could add a deviation add statement to add a similar must statement under tcp/flags also :-). > > Same for Section 3.5 Fragments Handling > [Med] Same answer :-) > > - There should be clear direction to the RFC Editor on what should be done > with revision dates. The same is true for other placeholder text. For > example, what is the RFC Editor to do with text "RFC XXXX"? > [Med] Done: https://github.com/boucadair/enhanced-acl-netmod/pull/59/files > <https://github.com/boucadair/enhanced-acl-netmod/pull/59/files> [mj] Thanks. > > - References in the YANG model should be expanded to include the title of the > RFC. > > [Med] We are echoing references as listed in an IANA registry, so we do not > have control over that reference. > > - Examples are always good. Not only can they be used to validate the model, > but users get to understand how it can be used. See other models such as BGP, > TCP, BFD on how an example can be added. > > [Med] We do already have many in the core document. Will consider adding more > if needed. [mj] I am referring to the example as stated in Section 3.12 of RFC 8407 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-3.12>. If by core you are referring to RFC 8519, then unfortunately, we the authors missed it too -:( But here is a module usage example from another draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17#name-creating-bgp-instance <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17#name-creating-bgp-instance> > > - How is this a reference? > reference > "- Bill Simpson <mailto:Bill.Simpson&um.cc.umich.edu > <http://um.cc.umich.edu/>> > > [Med] We are echoing a reference as cited in an IANA registry, so we do not > have control over that reference. [mj] Regardless, and I am repeating the question, how is this a reference? I think having RFC 6918 as a reference is good enough. And that brings up another point. The sections that contain the YANG models need to list out all the references cited in the model at the beginning of the section. For example, Section 4 needs to list RFC 9293, 3032, 792, 4443 etc. at the beginning of the section, such that they are included in the Normative list of references. See Section 3.9 of RFC 8407 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-3.9>. Thanks. > > Thanks. > [Med] Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. > > > Thank you. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
