Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8519 (5762)

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555EA1200DF for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGlFY_xOtUuz for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F61F120041 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E70941BF15FE8265F420; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:19:32 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:19:32 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.66]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:16:37 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: Sonal Agarwal <sagarwal12@gmail.com>, Yi Huang <huangyi_99@yahoo.com>, "dana@blairhome.com" <dana@blairhome.com>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8519 (5762)
Thread-Index: AdUru/8o/zy556udRRiUnKV/NtcQvg==
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 01:16:36 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49B0421@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/_8uiPo_s89EwoiHOjdo0oMf4crY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:59:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8519 (5762)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 01:19:38 -0000

Thanks Mahesh for clarification, one follow up question is
Why acl type is defined as an optional parameter, we use when statement for each choice, let's say
"
            choice l2 {
              container eth {
                when "derived-from-or-self(/acls/acl/type, "
                   + "'acl:eth-acl-type')";
"
What happen if acl type is not present or unspecified? Is it equivalent no field being matched for each choice?

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com] 
发送时间: 2019年6月26日 6:51
收件人: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
抄送: Sonal Agarwal <sagarwal12@gmail.com>om>; Yi Huang <huangyi_99@yahoo.com>om>; dana@blairhome.com; Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>om>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>et>; joelja@bogus.com; Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>et>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8519 (5762)

This errata should be rejected for the following reason.

The whole idea of defining the identities for acl-type was to allow vendors to specify what capabilities their box is capable of supporting and then to specify what capabilities the vendors want to support. As such there is no “default capability" for every vendor. Besides, if a device advertises a mixed-eth-ipv4 feature, it is because it can only support Ethernet and IPv4 ACL combinations, and it cannot support IPv6 ACL matches. You do not add a capability of IPv6 match on the fly. It either has it, or it does not. If it does, advertise mixed-eth-ipv4-ipv6 capability to begin with.

> On Jun 23, 2019, at 8:58 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8519, "YANG Data 
> Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5762
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> 
> Section: 4.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> leaf type {
> type acl-type;
> description
>  "Type of ACL.  Indicates the primary intended
>   type of match criteria (e.g., Ethernet, 
>   IPv4, IPv6, mixed, etc.) used in the list
>   instance.";
> }
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> leaf type {
> type acl-type;
> default "ipv4-acl-type";
> description
>  "Type of ACL.  Indicates the primary intended
>   type of match criteria (e.g., Ethernet, 
>   IPv4, IPv6, mixed, etc.) used in the list
>   instance.";
> }
> 
> Notes
> -----
> I am wondering why not  set default value for acl-type,e.g., set default value as "ipv4-acl-type" otherwise, how to determine which field under which choice will be matched upon and which action should be taken on them if the opetional parameter type under acl list is not set.
> 
> Also I want to better understand why acl type is removed from key indexes of access list and keep it as optional parameter under acl list. One case I am thinking in my mind is we add a mixed Ethernet, IPv4, and IPv6 ACL entry when we already have Ethernet ACL entry,IPv4 ACL entry , we don't need to remove existing ethernet entry and existing IPv4 entry in the list ("aces") and create a new entry with mixed ethernet, IPv4, IPv6 ACL, instead, we just add a new identity called mixed-eth-ipv4-ipv6-acl-type and add a new IPv6 entry.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please 
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. 
> When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change 
> the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8519 (draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-21)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)
> Publication Date    : March 2019
> Author(s)           : M. Jethanandani, S. Agarwal, L. Huang, D. Blair
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Network Modeling
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com