Re: [netmod] ACL model problem

Lada, Our original intention was to be able to define wild cards for source and destination ports, but what you are suggesting is also an option and I agree your suggestion is better, so adding presence statement to port containers, as in example below, would be the right solution grouping

Re: [netmod] acl-model-5: remove time-range and put input-interface behind an if-feature

Jason and I spoke on this issue and the question is Do we want to add time range directly to the standard model or create a separate model for time range that can be then applied to other different nodes? If we decide to keep it as is, then the ask is to if-feature time range. If there will

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> Sam Aldrin wrote: >>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > On Sep 10,

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On this point: >> >> On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> And >>> should the interface

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

Juergen, Please see answers inline Dean > On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:27:04AM -0800, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> This email initiates a NETMOD WG Last call for >>

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

The basic design idea for the base model is structure that all vendors support. Some of the examples mentioned below, like FQDN, are not supported by all vendors and are protected by IPR (which I wasn’t aware of it). There are many possible match conditions that could be added to the base

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Martin, > n Nov 24, 2015, at 4:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the >> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. >> These

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:21:42PM +0100, Martin

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:50:58AM -0500, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> Please see answers inline >> >> Dean >> &

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 <ivand...@gmail.com> >&g

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

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Ebben Aries wrote: > > > On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >> 1. This draft defines two module, one is IETF-PACKET-FIELDS, the other is >> ietf-access-control-list module, >> I am wondering whether ietf-packet-fields module can be defined

Re: [netmod] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] [yang-doctors] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:58:52PM +0100, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: >> >>> >>> For the sake of clarity, I personally would prefer to have a single &

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA) > wrote: > > Hi all, > > The ACL model is converging on a small core set of functionality that is > fairly common. > > But I think the matching on input-interface should be removed from the model > (or at

[netmod] input Interface match

As the action item from the netmod WG and, hopefully, last open item in the ACL draft is the leaf input interface in the metadata grouping grouping metadata { description "Fields associated with a packet which are not in the header."; leaf input-interface { type

Re: [netmod] YANG model classification?

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:55:19AM +, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) wrote: >>> I come at this from the classification angle, so my interest is if the >>> assumption that >>> a YANG model

[netmod] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07.txt

trol List (ACL) YANG Data Model >Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Kiran Agrahara Sreenivasa > Lisa Huang > Dana Blair > Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07.txt > Pages

Re: [netmod] Remove input-interface (metadata) from netmod-acl-model-07 ?

ead support and it isn’t core > functionality -> assigning an ACL to an interface is how it is normally done. I’ll add this item to the open issue and will ask WG at the meeting for opinion. > > Regards, > Jason > > From: EXT Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com > <

Re: [netmod] yang model classification

Joel, > On Apr 24, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > What is the relationship between this taxonomy and the many models that do > not fit its cateogrization? > > Three examples: > Models used in ODL to generate results which may be neither network services >

Re: [netmod] Is there any common module (like library module) for matching all IPv4 or IPv6 header fields?

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

Re: [netmod] input Interface match

. It is out of > place with the rest of the model and a fairly clean line to draw as a > boundary for future extension/augmentation. > > Regards, > Jason > > From: EXT Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:ivand...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 9:25 > To: Stern

Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > > To add more comments: > > On the L2SM meeting, several people (4 or more) believed the 3 service > delivery model examples ([I-D.dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang], > [I-D.ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang] and

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is > consistent with the latest version of > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a > question has

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

anagement architecture? As few years ago, would be willing to put something forward on this topic, but today the management architecture is in such a flux, that Adrian’s question needs an answer first. Dean > > Thanks for continuing to drive this issue. > > Adrian > >> -

Re: [netmod] Question about acl-type in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08

(+netmod mailing list) Adrian, Please see inline > On Aug 22, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Adrian Pan wrote: > > Dear authors, > > I have some questions about ietf acl model as below, your reply is > appreciated. > > 1) In the model definition acl-type is one key of the

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23

Speaker as a contributor No, I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Dean > On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Speaker as an author, > > No, I am not aware of an IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-04.txt

is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. > >Title : YANG Module Classification > Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Benoit Claise &

Re: [netmod] RFC 8022 on A YANG Data Model for Routing Management

Congrats Lada! This was a great marathon to pull of with Acee coming down the road and helping out. Again, congrats to both of you Dean > On Nov 9, 2016, at 11:18 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > >RFC

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

> On Oct 29, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > The last call period for this draft has ended. Thank you to all that > responded. Given the responses received, my co-chair and I believe that the > draft is ready to move forward. I will begin the shepherd

[netmod] review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-03.txt

Authors, I don’t have deep knowledge of PIM, so if some protocol specifics haven’t been modeled right, I missed them. For application comparison, was looking at Juniper PIM configuration. The modules are using draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg as base, and follows the routing-instance-centric

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

gt; Acee > > From: David Bannister <d...@netflix.com <mailto:d...@netflix.com>> > Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM > To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>> > Cc: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net&

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

Chairs, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft Dean > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > As part of the preparation for WG Last Call > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above? >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 (until Oct 5, 2016)

Adrian, Sorry for not replying earlier. Your email fell through the cracks. > On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Adrian Pan wrote: > > I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-08 and I am considering to > implement the data model in the draft, while I found below issue:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

ate an ACL. Maybe for a highly secure system would generate an ACL to deny all traffic to and from, except to access it via console when it comes up. Can you come with some other use cases? If we can find viable use cases, then yes, would say that reporting opstate for system generated ACLs is u

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

I support this draft publication and we have implemented this draft, so there is another vendor implementation. Dean > On Oct 14, 2016, at 11:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > I have reviewed this draft and support its publication. We have implemented > the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (until Oct 27, 2016)

rs but, as a courtesy, will people claiming > implementations and using a non company email domain (e.g @gmail.com > <http://gmail.com/>) indicate which organization it is that's done the > implementing. > > thanks, > pd > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Dean Bogdanovi

Re: [netmod] Applied data store clarification in draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com <mailto:ivand...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Authors, >> >> Need some clarification about applied data store >>

[netmod] Applied data store clarification in draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

Authors, Need some clarification about applied data store In the draft, applied data store can contain data from This data can come from several sources; from , from dynamic configuration protocols (e.g., DHCP), or from control-plane datastore. The control-plane stores are not well

Re: [netmod] Question on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification

d on the list). > >> 3. What's the well position of the above terms in the management >> architecture? > > Ah, I like that question. But it makes me ask: where should I look for the > definitive, state-of-the art management architecture? > > Thanks for continuin

[netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt

-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt > Date: March 13, 2017 at 10:52:38 AM GMT+1 > To: <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, "Kiran Koushik" <kkous...@cisco.com>, "Lisa > Huang" <lyihuan...@gmail.com>, "Dean Bogdanovic" <ivand...@gmail.com>, "Da

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-06.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. > >Title : YANG Module Classification > Authors : Dean Bogdanovic > Benoit Claise > Carl Moberg >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Kent, As other work I have authored depends on it, I have read the document and think it's ready for publication. Dean > On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > All, > > This starts a two-week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07.

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14

I agree with points raised by Juergen and Kristian. Because of design changes I have stepped down as co-author of the draft. > On Nov 2, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > Kristian, > > I hear you. What I am providing is the rational for the current

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

As Lou mentioned, schema mount can be used with or without YANG library. As author who uses the schema mount in a draft and in product, don’t want to hold back the publication. We, IETF, are too slow. Getting data model RFCs published takes too much time and we are not getting experience from

Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

I will ask a different question How many people have implemented the draft? And are they talking from experience implementing the model? I have implemented LNE and NI and to be honest, when customers ask about IETF compatibility, i reference a draft and tell them it will take long time until

Re: [netmod] Correction, date It ends Feb 20th Re: Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

yes/support no, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this document... Dean > On Feb 6, 2018, at 18:57, joel jaeggli wrote: > > Sorry, Feb 20th is the end date for the adoption call. > > regards > > joel > >> On 2/6/18 3:47 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This

Re: [netmod] IPR call draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:26 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > Authors, Contributors, WG, > > Regarding the document > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? > No, I'm not

Re: [netmod] WG adoption call: draft-dbb-netmod-acl-03

Support the adoption Dean On 19 Dec 2022, at 18:00, Lou Berger wrote: > Hello, > > This email begins a 3-week adoption poll for: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbb-netmod-acl/ > > Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the > list by the end of the day (any