Yea, I agree that its probably worth giving a little more latitude when
helping people with models. 8)
—Tom
> On May 10, 2016:12:55 PM, at 12:55 PM, Linda Dunbar
> wrote:
>
> Juergen,
>
> Of course, it is not confusing to you because you are in
Lisa,
My difficulty was not being able to see the value of one comment based on
another comment.
Now I understand it is really just personal preference. Having an extra step
doesn't hurt the bottom line end result. It is Ok.
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Lisa (Yi) Huang
Hi Linda,
I think that having the base identity makes the model safer and more
extensible in future. I think that the general idea of a base identity
is fairly standard and is perhaps a bit like defining an abstract base
class in an OO language.
So, in YANG, rather than a when statement
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Linda Dunbar
wrote:
> Juergen,
>
> Of course, it is not confusing to you because you are in the box (vs. many
> of us are outside the box looking in).
>
> RFC 6020 doesn't say all identities have to have a sub-identity.
>
>
>
This is how
Linda,
Could you elaborate what difficulty you are facing?
The draft defines
typedef acl-type {
type identityref {
base acl-base;
}
}
This allows the acl-type to be ipv4-acl or ipv6-acl, or other new types
that inherit from acl-type.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Lisa
On 5/10/16,
Linda,
If you need additional fields in ACL, it is easy to extend the existing base
model. The intention of the draft authors was to create base common model that
can be then extended for different uses.
Saying that, there is nothing out there that could be used for your purposes,
but using