Subject: Re: [Supa] Existing policy initiatives inside the IETF

From: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:52:32 +0800

Hi Andy,

Thank you very much for your support for SUPA work and we have made a lot of
progress on policy model based on your advices. 

It is a very good point as you mentioned to connect policy model to config
model. I believe we are on the right track to do the work as suggested. 

If you get a chance to look at the new generic policy model draft
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-m
odel/?include_text=1], the model needs metadata to specify the detail
information of a policy object. Currently the "metadata class" is defined
with little detail and we plan to work on that. It will be really good that
you can give more comments on that. 

Best Regards,

Jun

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:39:22PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:

>> - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model/

> Why is this a policy draft?

> I mean, if this is policy, is NACM not also policy? Is not pretty much 

> everything I can configure policy then?

It is possible for all config to be policy-driven.

Actually, ACL and NACM are 2 modules likely to be part of a policy
implementation.

Connecting policy models to config and operational models is an interesting
topic to me. How much can be done with automation tools, and what meta-data
is needed in the YANG to enable those tools?

> /js

Andy

_______________________________________________

Supa mailing list

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa