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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:46:40 -0700

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").

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§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.

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:59:44 -0700

Hi Adam,

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

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

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]