Ooooh. That's too easy. ha!

The thing is that the "fair-queue" is a subcommand to "class class-default" so I was under the assumption that I needed to first do a global command, "policy-map WAN-OUT", then do another subcommand under that for "class class-default" and then the final command under the "class..." command. On the router itself, the "class..." is indented and under that the "fair..." is indented.

Flip

You'll need two commandlets in the same template, one the parent of the other:

Commandlet 1:

Submode: policy-map WAN-OUT

Commands:

+ class class-default

Commandlet 2:

Parent: Commandlet 1

Submode: class class-default

Commands:

+ fair-queue

I think that's what I have. But let's check.

I have a global "commandset":

Name: PolicyWFQ

Submode: policy-map WAN-OUT

Mark as Prerequisite: "checked"

CLI Commands: + class class-default

Now, should I create a command"set" that is also global or nest it under this first one?

If I don't nest it, would I make it the following global commandset?:

Name: ClassDefault

Subcommand: class class-default (??)

Prerequisite: PolicyWFQ

Mark as Prerequisite: (leave unchecked)

CLI Commands: + fair-queue

Prior to this conversation, I made the 2nd commandset nested under PolicyWFQ

Flip

You don't need to make PolicyWFQ a prerequisite, but you can. The ClassDefault command set should be a child of PolicyWFQ. Everything else looks correct.

The report that came back seemed OK but the non compliant devices showed:

+ policy-map WAN-OUT

+ fair-queue

I don't see the subcommand of the policy-map of "+ class class-default".

So, if I run a deploy, I assume it would put "fair-queue" directly under the "policy-map WAN-OUT; or at least attempt to.

In fact, I already tried this scenario. Shouldn't I see all three statements on the report?

Also, I did notice that the "+ fair queue" was indented on the report.