Re: [netmod] ACL draft issues found during shepherd writeup

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

This edit doesn't seem correct to me because now we have a choice with a
single case, with range having been removed.  Can we please revert and
proceed?


On 26.02.18 20:24, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> A pull request to address LC, shepherd, this and the other comments,
> including derived-from(), can be reviewed here:
>
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/pull/24
>
> Thanks.
>
>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 12:15 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26.02.18 06:55, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  PS: And this is not a shepherd directive, but I found the whole 
>>>>>      "source-port-range-or-operator" syntax clumsy.  I'm surprised
>>>>>      it didn't look something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>          OLD
>>>>>                <source-port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                   <port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                     <range>
>>>>>                       <lower-port>16384</lower-port>
>>>>>                       <upper-port>65535</upper-port>
>>>>>                     </range>
>>>>>                   </port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                </source-port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>
>>>>>                <source-port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                  <port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                    <operator>
>>>>>                      <operator>eq</operator>
>>>>>                      <port>21</port>
>>>>>                    </operator>
>>>>>                  </port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>                </source-port-range-or-operator>
>>>>>
>>>>>          NEW
>>>>>
>>>>>                <source-port>
>>>>>                  <range>
>>>>>                    <lower>16384</lower>
>>>>>                    <upper>65535</upper>
>>>>>                  </range>
>>>>>                </source-port>
>>>>>
>>>>>                <source-port>
>>>>>                  <operator>
>>>>>                    <operator>eq</operator>
>>>>>                    <port>21</port>
>>>>>                  </operator>
>>>>>                </source-port>
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> Did you try making the change in the model to see if it work? It
>>>> will complain that <range> is already used within the container and
>>>> that it cannot be repeated (for destination-port).
>>>>
>>>> <KENT> No, I did not, nor do I intend to get that deep into it. 
>>>> But I recall that Kristian made the same comment before, and was
>>>> making pull requests before, so maybe he can suggest something?
>>>
>>> Kristian’s suggestion requires changing the module. It is not an
>>> editorial change. And that change will have an impact on the MUD
>>> draft, which has been sent for publication. 
>>>
>>
>> As it happens, we found a bug in our augment statements, and so we
>> will need to rev one more time.  If the change can be made quickly, I
>> can live with it.
>>
>> Eliot
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>