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

[Kristian Larsson <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 10:38:45AM -0700, Sonal Agarwal wrote:
> Kristian,
> 
> In response to one of your previous comments:
> 
> "I'm really bothered by the compound key consisting of acl-type
> and the acl-name since attachment points then need to reference
> both.  It's also weird because I don't think choosing the
> acl-type is really a choice of the user but more of a limitation
> of the platform.
> 
> One approach would be to change the key to only be the acl-name
> but let the acl-type leaf remain, perhaps make it mandatory or
> default to some unified acl-type. I think it's still possible to
> implement a constraint on this, right? Like if a platform only
> supports a specific type at some attachment point it can add a
> constraint on the acl-type by doing deref() on the leafref."
> 
> The key for an ACL needs to remain as the name and type. They
> both uniquely define the presence of the ACL in config. 

You can't argue for a design choice by saying "this is how it
is". If we change the key to be acl-name only then it is the name
that "uniquely define the presence of the ACL in config".

What do you perceive as the benefit of having acl-type in the
key? Why can't it be an attribute? We can still check, from the
attachment point, what the acl-type is.

   kll

-- 
Kristian Larsson                                        KLL-RIPE
[phone]                                [e-mail]