Joel's "templates" sound like apply-groups in Junos:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.3/topics/example/routing-matr ix-tx-matrix-plus-using-configuration-groups-for-components-solutions.html K. On 5/14/14, 10:28 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: >(Alia, correct me if I mis-represent this concept.) > >No, temnplating is not just "Default values must be possible to specify." > >An example is that you might have a scheduling structure. it has a set >of defaults which create a specific scheduling discipling. >The Client can create a scheduling instance, and can over-ride any and >all of those defaults. >So far, that is just modeling with defaults. > >The idea with templates is that the Client could also say "For all the >values I don't specify, use the WFQ template" or the EF template, or ... > If the client does that, the agent would treat the values from that >template which are specified in the template and are not specified in >the request from the controller as if they had been specified by the >controller, rather than using the base defaults. > >Coupled with this, some mechanism would provide these templates. The >power here is that there might be different templates for the "EF >Scheduling template" on different boxes to reflect how each box should >be configured to achieve the policy goal. > >Conversely, clearly, all of this data can be on the client and the >client can do the inclusion. > >Yours, >Joel > >On 5/14/14, 9:58 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>> Templating is described in the archtiecture document. >>> However, as I said when i presented the material, this is a topic on >>>which >>> the authors disagree. >>> I personally do not think it should be a protocol behavior, and >>>therefore do >>> not see it as something the model needs to represent. >>> >>> The basic idea of templating is to allow the I2RS client to say to the >>>I2RS >>> agent "I want to set this instance to these values, but for all the >>>things I >>> don't specify, use this template over here to determine what values to >>>set." >>> This clearly has power. Equally clearly, it can be done at the client >>> rather than at the agent. >>> >> >> Seems like i abused the term "template". I.e it seems to me that would >> fall under >> " Default values MUST be possible to specify" - which is described in >>the wiki. >> Shouldnt this be a model problem? >> I will fix the wiki entry and remove it from that sub-section. >> >> On the OO class/instances: >> The motivation is to be able to describe "set blah to RIB instance >>foo". The >> concept for abstracting a "factory" which is essentially a "class" vs >> an "instance" of >> that class seems to belong to the model. >> >> >> cheers, >> jamal >> > >_______________________________________________ >i2rs mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
