Dear draft-ietf-opsawg-mud authors,
A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model has been posted, and it
now passes validation. It failed previously with:
/[email protected]:118: warning: The 'must'
expression will fail: the node 'upper-port' from module
'ietf-access-control-list' (in node 'operation' from
'ietf-access-control-list') is not found
./[email protected]:118: warning: The 'must' expression
will fail: the node 'lower-port' from module 'ietf-access-control-list'
(in node 'operation' from 'ietf-access-control-list') is not found
...
As a consequence, this error is not reported any longer in the
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud YANG models.
However, there are still some errors:
warn: Value "eth-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type" (acl-type
= 'eth-acl').
warn: Value "ipv4-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type"
(acl-type = 'ipv4-acl').
warn: Value "ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type"
(acl-type = 'ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "any-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type" (acl-type
= 'any-acl').
warn: Value "eth-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type" (acl-type
= 'eth-acl').
warn: Value "ipv4-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type"
(acl-type = 'ipv4-acl').
warn: Value "ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type"
(acl-type = 'ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-ipv6-acl" is not valid for the node
"acl-type" (acl-type = 'mixed-l2-l3-ipv4-ipv6-acl').
warn: Value "any-acl" is not valid for the node "acl-type" (acl-type
= 'any-acl').
See http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html
Please correct those mistakes and post a new version.
Also, make sure both revisions match (for all your YANG modules in the
draft) and are up to date
<CODE BEGINS>file "[email protected]"
module ietf-acldns {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-acldns";
prefix "ietf-acldns";
revision "2016-07-20" {
description "Base version of dnsname extension of ACL model";
reference "RFC XXXX: Manufacturer Usage Description
Specification";
}
While this revision mismatch seems like a minor thing, this is a pain
from a tooling point of view (as we need to index YANG modules per name,
revision, organization)
We discovered that version 8 contains a newer revision than the version
9. That confused our tooling.
version 8:
<CODE BEGINS>file "[email protected]"
...
revision "2017-07-03" {
description "Clone across IP ACL types.";
reference "RFC XXXX: Manufacturer Usage Description
Specification";
}
version 9:
<CODE BEGINS>file "[email protected]"
...
revision "2016-07-20" {
description "Base version of dnsname extension of ACL model";
reference "RFC XXXX: Manufacturer Usage Description
Specification";
}
All these metadata are important.
We're working on:
https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-acldns
Also, is your YANG module NMDA compliant? It reports tree-type as
"unclassified".
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
