Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with DISCUSS)

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

Is the model usable as is? Can it be augmented for other protocols? 

I think the answer to both the questions is yes. I do not see why then can requests like yours not be handled as separate drafts. What is the reason to hold up this draft this late in the game?

Cheers.

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
>  Thanks for your quick reply. Please find comments inline.
> 
>> On Sep 27, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Suresh,
>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss
>>> 
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> This document is missing ACL handling for ICMPv6 (RFC4443) completely. As the
>>> ICMP types and codes are different for ICMP and ICMPv6 I think this model
>>> should be included to cover ICMPv6.
>> 
>> I understand that there are many protocols that fall into such a criteria. As has already been discussed, we are offering the minimum set of protocols for which there is a demand, while giving the option to extend it through augmentations of the base model.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but ICMPv6 is not just another protocol. It is a core protocol in the IPv6 protocol suite. Do you know of any systems that support IPv6 acls but not support ICMPv6 there?
> 
>> 
>> Let us not boil the ocean. As it is, this draft has been in the works for more than 4 years.
> 
> This is a very clear and bounded request (i.e. not boiling the ocean). I do not think this will be significant amount of work. If you do feel otherwise, I will be glad to revisit my position
> 
> Regards
> Suresh