IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with COMMENT)

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Sat, 29 September 2018 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 E48231292AD; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SXveO-1VXvQD; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAC62128A6E; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id q19-v6so5565866pgn.10; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YwrPDfQuot0htSjk9QY3FKmb2j4/G84DorubahB1T7A=; b=a+bU6JsBMfSi0Tj3k7ELF1wEIJOe73ye3OgaZrd5tIgKG0C6K5BdcJBp0kCVCAw4ZN dbXSaXeNy/b12kA+oaWQ4AcEqi0o+449suruWq/LO6pp0KWt2g3FN8BISahnpgHfDUpo wjfoixxA3Le/shlDIlfK7CkJhwEZrhrkJWTHehlQVvmHdYR4Tog8Zj+ZWU5l7+03gUuW il96ufsmjOKfSRO2z+y+5STjs/N5FhCz2bbFKZY4+BNm66T+anKyOPeQ4J7D2WEXW+PY 15aOA6DgTrpsk36273YBjz5lno8NAW7SZ9idDxqwAIAtiIA3YivTo4t7JBFrfxq8kuNO IHOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YwrPDfQuot0htSjk9QY3FKmb2j4/G84DorubahB1T7A=; b=cJaE56Pr+DGvf+1TTSFn6hEOkz9hWUdMv8bPTYvv84QfAD923T3rprfVZZAvQcfxlP RYbQzuJy+NzKSbaZCo4LBxC8A40u2fZgK1syf4QBeBFkzaE4gNJ4g57cE0IwGhrtih1N iHZYnXRVbhbTaA453KC1b03teJWb8J5O4sjCuJL0KyEKFCxyUTgCeXTpJaj5hXVjnSyX gXB5C62TZKM6OB4lPWOgmNCC88i3UtHP5P9FBmDA3Kkk8kBZZ/2kVhaRuSAXvPIZUPNT Ept0qpFp/3iMGduL6YUyIQuF8g2G+hywrwL8on8ECfZK/V0fccjS2cT6HgLxO/JjjpP1 Uqlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohaHwqQ6mj6DyJwNNeawV2GF8q3ybs/x4dci+xD6NUM84eUZKH9 aXd5UeJ+EdDoftuElrzgXDA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61Aqlti4vWfMCEOlkTuSGSKdw8rWrSZv5h9n/MIpt1NV8fGoZUB26QnmgLoIPI1gt+La2rFpQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:cac4:: with SMTP id y65-v6mr1002322pfk.27.1538182787281; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.52.174.170] ([66.170.99.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j22-v6sm8375196pfh.45.2018.09.28.17.59.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <153802720046.21595.9868289852896623742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:44 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <95052300-05B9-4B7C-9D09-1694286E2E3E@gmail.com>
References: <153802720046.21595.9868289852896623742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ypI1K7b6toWFn_B498hRvkYoohQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with COMMENT)
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 00:59:50 -0000

Hi Adam,

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: No Objection
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to everyone who contributed their time and knowledge to this document. I
> have two minor comments.
> 
> Throughout the data module, the terms "ace" and "ACE" are used interchangeably.
> It would probably be good to rationalize these (I would suggest "ACE”).

I went through the draft. The only places where the term “ace” is used is to reference the node ‘ace’ in the model. Where it is not referencing the node, the model uses “ACE”. Hope that clarifies.

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §4.3 and 4.4:
> 
> These examples use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update to use IPv6 or a
> mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/
> for additional information.

Section 4.3 has two examples, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email