Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis Query

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andy/Martin,
>
>
>
> Can you please clarify the below query about rule-list group having “*”.
> Whether we need to allow a new group to be added a rule-list which already
> has a “*” in the leaf-list.
>
>
>

Yes -- both group entries are allowed, even though 1 of them is redundant

> With Regards,
>
> Rohit R
>

Andy

>
>
> *From:* Rohit R Ranade
> *Sent:* 16 November 2017 13:17
> *To:* 'netconf@ietf.org' <netconf@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis Query
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> 1 more point I wanted clarified was for the below point
>
>
>
> leaf-list group {
>
>            type union {
>
>              type matchall-string-type;
>
>              type group-name-type;
>
>            }
>
>            description
>
>              "List of administrative groups that will be
>
>               assigned the associated access rights
>
>               defined by the 'rule' list.
>
>
>
>               The string '*' indicates that all groups apply to the
>
>               entry.";
>
>
>
> Consider that existing configuration is like below:
>
> <rule-list>
>
>    <name>list1</name>
>
>    <group>ug1</group>
>
> </rule-list>
>
>
>
> Consider that user will add to this group a record of ‘*”
>
> <rule-list>
>
>    <name>list1</name>
>
>    <group>ug1</group>
>
> <group>*</group>
>
> </rule-list>
>
> ð  Whether this is valid configuration ? “*” can be considered as a
> super-set as it will apply for all group. So can this leaf-list contain *
> along with other UGs ?
>
>
>
> One scenario where this is possible is when initially the user had thought
> of applying a rule-list to only a particular Group , but later the user
> wants to apply to all groups.
>
>
>
> With Regards,
>
> Rohit R
>
>
>
> *From:* Rohit R Ranade
> *Sent:* 15 November 2017 10:42
> *To:* netconf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis Query
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> For the state-data in NACM like the below :
>
>
>
> leaf denied-operations {
>
>          type yang:zero-based-counter32;
>
>          config false;
>
>          mandatory true;
>
>          description
>
>            "Number of times since the server last restarted that a
>
>             protocol operation request was denied.";
>
>        }
>
>
>
> “Number of times since the server” è Here the server is being referenced
> to NETCONF server or RESTCONF server ?
>
> Please note that the both the NETCONF server and RESTCONF server maybe
> using the same NACM configurations but the state-data maintained by each
> protocol maybe different.
>
>
>
> With Regards,
>
> Rohit R
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>