Inline. > On Jan 30, 2026, at 3:08 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Acee/Qiufang, > >> On Jan 29, 2026, at 4:32 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Qiufang, >> >> >> See inline. >> >>> On Jan 29, 2026, at 2:41 AM, maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Acee, >>> >>> Thanks for the follow-up, please see below inline with [Qiufang]. My >>> co-authors may chime in if they wish. >>> >>>> I have one major concern with this document. The YANG model adds >>>> generalized schedule-based ACEs, yet this is not reflected in the YANG >>>> model name, draft title, or abstract. This should at least be in a >>>> separate YANG model and possibly in a separate draft since it appears >>>> to have been added as an afterthought and, IMO, it is much more >>>> important than the group-based access control. >>>> [Qiufang] Note that this is not an afterthought design, it is there when >>>> the draft was -00. We split the scheduling related definition into a >>>> separate I-D to define common groupings (see >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/), based >>>> on the WG feedback. >>>> I agree with you that the extension regarding scheduling is of great >>>> importance, it addresses the requirement of “when to take effect”, >>>> together with endpoint group based matching, which resolves the >>>> requirement of “for whom to take effect”, they both constitutes the data >>>> model, separating them could fragment the policy model. Hopefully this >>>> clarifies the intention. >>>> To enhance the visibility of the scheduling feature, we have updated both >>>> the abstract and introduction sections to reflect it explicitly. >>> >>> Will you also have a separate YANG model? For example, >>> ietf-acl-ace-sched.yang? >>> [Qiufang] As clarified, creating a separate model might introduce >>> unnecessary fragmentation. Note we already use if-feature to make each >>> augment conditional ("match-on-group" feature for endpoint group based >>> augmentation and "schedule" feature for date and time based ACLs), this >>> allows the potential for reuse that a separate model could provide, >>> especially for implementations that wants to support time-based ACLs >>> without the complexity of endpoint group matching. Thanks. >> >> I think quite the contrary. Hiding this important capability with a feature >> into a model relating to RADIUS authentication is just wrong. >> This model will need to be imported just to get the scheduled ACE >> functionality. I'd like to hear what Med (Co-author) and >> Majesh have to say about this. > > I am not sure if this is directed to me, as I am not Majesh :-)
That is Mahesh in Español... > > The core offering of the draft is a policy-based network access control. As > part of that offering, there is as you note Acce, a *capability* of being > able to schedule that policy. That capability is much like the rest of the > capabilities in the module, e.g., mapping of a user group to set of IP/MAC > addresses. Rather than listing every capability in the Abstract, how about > this as a suggested change? Who is Acce? 😎 > > Abstract: > > The abstract anyway needs to be short and succint. It could therefore drop > the second paragraph and just say: > > "This document defines a YANG data model for policy-based network access > control, which provides enforcement of network access control policies based > on group identity.” > > and then in the Introduction, where one normally starts describing the module > in detail could add a sentence, (which BTW, appears later in the draft). > Specifically, in the Introduction section, the paragraph that starts with > “Specifically in scenarios …”, could see an addition of the following > sentence at the end. > > “Finally, it enables access control policy activation based on date and time > conditions.' I was also thinking the scheduling should have its own YANG module, e.g., ietf-acl-sched.yang, that could be imported separately since this is more significant the the extension for authentication. Thanks, Acee > > Cheers. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 5. How did you decide on 64 octets for the group identifier string >>>> maximum? >>>> [Qiufang] As specified in the YANG module, the “group-id” is defined as a >>>> string type with a length constraint of "1..64". This is to align with >>>> that. >>> >>> Right - I'm asking how you came up with 64 octets as a limit? >>> [Qiufang] sorry for misunderstanding. 64 is not arbitrary, see >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950.html#section-6.2: "Implementations >>> MUST support identifiers up to 64 characters in length and MAY support >>> longer identifiers." >>> And also >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28#section-4.3: >>> "All YANG identifiers in published modules MUST be between 1 and 64 >>> characters in length." >> >> The references you cite are relating to YANG model identifiers, e.g, >> "group-id", NOT the length of >> the value of a YANG type string leaf. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> 6. In section 6, I would have expected the attribute to be the first >>>> column in table 4. >>>> [Qiufang] Review of RADIUS-related RFCs (e.g., RFC 8044, RFC 2865) reveals >>>> no mandatory requirement that the attribute column be placed as the first >>>> column in the table. Since the table focuses solely on the single >>>> attribute "User-Access-Group-ID"—with no need to distinguish between >>>> multiple attributes—placing the attribute column last does not obscure the >>>> key information. >>>> There are also some input received from RADEXT WG, see some previous >>>> discussion at : >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/EWuvlu623PgapTPSB4s8LM6lc5M/. >>> >>> But English is normally left-to-right and one would expect the attribute to >>> be in the first column. >>> [Qiufang] Thanks, Acee. I don’t really have a strong feeling regarding >>> this. While I checked some existing RFCs that register the RADIUS attribute >>> type from "Radius Attribute Types", it seems that most of the RFCs put the >>> attribute as the last column, e.g., >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5176#section-3.6, >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8658#Table3, >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5090#section-5, and >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9445#table-1, perhaps aligning >>> with existing RFCs would help improve consistency? >> >> Ok, You can leave it if there are other places where it is backwards. >> >> THanks, >> Acee >> >> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Qiufang >>> >> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
