Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

[just back from PTO] I'll be doing the shepherd write-up shortly. Kent // shepherd = original message = status on this draft? ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

status on this draft? ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

-list-ref" can be used. Thanks for your help. Regards Jon From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto: mjethanand...@gmail.com] Sent: 04 October 2017 00:57 To: Jon Shallow Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model Jon, ‘ordered-by user’ directive is usef

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

Jon, ‘ordered-by user’ directive is useful to have on list of ACLs as/when they are applied. For example, in the latest published draft (-14) we added the 'ordered-by user’ statement to the list of ACLs when they are applied to the interfaces. You would not order the “global” ACLs list (under a

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model

Hi there, I'm currently working on another draft ietf specification (draft-ietf-dots-data-channel) which has a ordering requirement, but the 'ordered-by' statement is not specified (missing?) for the 'list acl' in container 'access-lists' in 4.1 IETF Access Control List "ietf-access-control-l.

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 defines 'any' rule as a presence container

The ACL draft (-11 version) defines the ‘any’ rule as a presence container as catch-all rule for customers that want to set an action in case the packet does not match any of the other rules. Unless there is an objection to this solution, we will close the issue with the suggested solution. Mah

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

On 7/11/2017 5:55 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: Benoit, Precisely. I did start in yangcatalog.com with the search for ether-type and found that it was defined as a string. It was helpful to get rid of the duplicate definition we had in the ACL draft. But that raised

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

mailto:glenn.pars...@ericsson.com>>, NetMod WG mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org>" mailto:draft-ietf-netmod-acl-mo...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4

ue should be removed from > section 8 and closed. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>> > Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM > To: NetMod WG mailto:n

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

day, July 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM > To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> > Cc: Marc Holness mailto:mholn...@ciena.com>>, Glenn > Parsons mailto:glenn.pars...@ericsson.com>>, > NetMod WG mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

.@ciena.com>>, Glenn Parsons mailto:glenn.pars...@ericsson.com>>, NetMod WG mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3 Benoit, Precisely. I did start in yangcatalog.com<http://yangcatalog.com> with the search for ether-type and found that it wa

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

Benoit, Precisely. I did start in yangcatalog.com with the search for ether-type and found that it was defined as a string. It was helpful to get rid of the duplicate definition we had in the ACL draft. But that raised the question of whether it should be defined as a string, when ether-types a

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

Hi, In order to look at what has been done already, the advice is to look at YANG search . I searched on "ether.type" with the regex flag. Don't pay attention to the last entry, this will be fixed. However, specifically pay attention to

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4

hanand...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM To: NetMod WG mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4 Created issue #4 in github<https://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/issues/4> as "Should this model include route-policy definit

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #4

Created issue #4 in github as "Should this model include route-policy definition as defined in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model?” with the following description: The title says it all. The only note is that the draft in question has expired, so it

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #1

Created issue #1 in github as “The current model does not support the concept of "containers" or object groups used to contain multiple objects per rule entry”. with a description that says: Some vendors define the concept of containers or objec

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11 issue #3

Created issue #3 in github as "The model defines 'ether-type' node as a string.” with the following description. The model defines 'ether-type' node as a string. Ideally, this should be a well defined list of all Ethernet Types assigned by IEEE.

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

I don’t think we need to block on that. The 1.1 drafts are nearly done and ready to go according to Juergen, so we shouldn’t wait. If something happens to change that causes something to break compilation-wise, that is easily fixed in the edit stages. Also, since your document refere

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Tom, One mailing list suggestion was using yang 1.1 construct. If we do it without that suggestion, then the model doesn’t require update, but it is better with this suggestion Dean > On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:52 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > > Will your model require any updates once 1.1 i

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Tom, We will publish ACL model requiring YANG 1.1 as per discussion on the list Dean > On Feb 3, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Lisa (Yi) Huang wrote: > > Tom, > > We discussed the review comments in the working group in offline meeting. > Will publish a new draft to address comments. Thanks, > > Lisa >

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Will your model require any updates once 1.1 is ratified? We don’t want to predicate having a bunch of models move forward on the 1.1 work moving forward. —Tom > On Feb 3, 2016:11:45 AM, at 11:45 AM, Dean Bogdanovic > wrote: > > Tom, > > We will publish ACL model requiri

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

Tom, We discussed the review comments in the working group in offline meeting. Will publish a new draft to address comments. Thanks, Lisa On 2/1/16, 8:01 AM, "netmod on behalf of Nadeau Thomas" wrote: > > ACL Doc Authors: > > What is your status and plan to address the numerous tec

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

ACL Doc Authors: What is your status and plan to address the numerous technical comments that have arisen since the WG LC? I know there are for example, numerous detailed comments from Juergen and I think Elliot Lear posted some too. —Tom

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-03: remove time-range and put input-interface behind an if-feature

(splitting point (A) out of the "RE: [netmod] A few other misc. comments on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-03" thread) Hi all, I'd propose we remove time-range from the model for a number of reasons: 1) I don't think we should build individual time-range functions all over the place in i