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

[David Bannister <[e-mail]>]

(second try)
There were no changes to the model so my concerns remain the same.
Augmentation is not a scalable solution when dealing with a mutli-vendor or
in some instances a multi-business-unit environment.  The 'newco' example
in the draft illustrates this problem.  The IETF produces a 'standard' for
an ACL draft which is so sparse in nature that it must be augmented by each
vendor.  In the best case this gives me a unique model per vendor because
we know the vendors are not going to get together to define the missing
pieces.  The vendors will use a variety of mechanisms to complete the model
from using a script to build their models from source code, handling the
missing pieces as arbitrary code (anyxml), or everything as a string.  Then
there is the worse case where a vendor has no internal standardization (you
know who you are) and their own product lines will not align into a common
model.  The object here, for me, is to get to a single model for all
vendors barring a unique feature that belongs to one vendor in which case
augmentation is acceptable.

Could you add to this in the future and rev up the RFC?  Sure.  However, I
am not sure what value that brings to the community.  In its current form I
would not ask any of my vendors to implement this draft.  Instead I would
push them towards the OpenConfig ACL model.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> Can you please confirm that the additional examples address your concern?
> And, if not, please
>
> explain if there is any reason why what you're looking for couldn't be
> added or augmented in
>
> in the future.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kent // shepherd
>
>
>
> On 3/13/17, 5:57 AM, "netmod on behalf of Dean Bogdanovic" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Here is the new version of the ACL draft. Since December and some
> additional comments about the ACL model, I spoke with many operators and
> how they use ACLs. I have also received lot of detailed ACL configurations.
> In most cases, the model is easily adapted to the current use cases in
> operations. But to answer the comments, the authors have added a detailed
> example in the addendum section how the model can be extended and how this
> model can be used.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *[e-mail]
>
> *Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt*
>
> *Date: *March 13, 2017 at 10:52:38 AM GMT+1
>
> *To: *<[e-mail]>, "Kiran Koushik" <[e-mail]>,
> "Lisa Huang" <[e-mail]>, "Dean Bogdanovic" <[e-mail]>,
> "Dana Blair" <[e-mail]>, "Kiran Agrahara Sreenivasa" <
> [e-mail]>
>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Dean Bogdanovic and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model
> Revision: 10
> Title: Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model
> Document date: 2017-03-13
> Group: netmod
> Pages: 32
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
> ietf-netmod-acl-model-10.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
> netmod-acl-model/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-10
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-
> netmod-acl-model-10
>
> Abstract:
>   This document describes a data model of Access Control List (ACL)
>   basic building blocks.
>
>   Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
>
>   This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced
>   with finalized values at the time of publication.  This note
>   summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed.  Please note
>   that no other RFC Editor instructions are specified anywhere else in
>   this document.
>
>   Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in
>   progress.  Please apply the following replacements
>
>   o  "XXXX" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft.
>
>   o  Revision date in model (Oct 12, 2016) needs to get updated with
>      the date the draft gets approved.  The date also needs to get
>      reflected on the line with <CODE BEGINS>.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>