As a long time observer I also admit to be a bit at odds with respect to the term ephemeral. Defining ephemeral as the set of data that doesn't survive a reboot (i.e. Power cycle) looks a bit rough.
There seem to be 3 cases for state info after reboot: 1) the server is able to recover lost data by local means. This is usually referred to as persistent. (Agent not involved, data is the same as before reboot) 2) an i2rs agent needs to reprovision data after reboot (Agent involved, data is controlled by agent) 3) the server reconstructs data from external sources other than i2rs clients. (Agent not involved, data not controlled) The term 'non-persistent' covers 2&3. The current draft text talks in section 1.2 about "ephemeral static state" which I interpret as 2) only. However it is not so clear why it is considered static. That would mean case 3) is ephemeral dynamic state, but that isn't defined yet and it could be as static as 2). I admit having used the term "ephemeral" meaning case 2) only, which occasionally causes confusion. So yes, I am in favor of adding a definition to the architecture. At this point I am undecided if we need new terminology or if a narrower definition would be sufficient. Gert Sent from my Apple ][ On 30 Mar 2016, at 10:02, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I think it’s a good idea to give a definition in the beginning of the document. The i2rs definition matches also my definition which we are using to describe the fact, that a customer specific service “configuration” on a service node does not survive a reboot. Just my 2 cents Nic Von: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Susan Hares Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. März 2016 18:02 An: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: 'Joel Halpern Direct'; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 'Fred Baker (fred)' Betreff: [i2rs] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion Hi all: <wg chair hat on> The draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture document has been approved as an RFC. In the review, the OPS-DIR review indicated that “ephemeral” meant more than “does not survive a reboot”. They have asked the I2RS working group if replacing “ephemeral” with non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles) would be a better choice. What do you think – leave at it at “ephemeral” or change to “non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles) ? We will have a 1 week call on This would mean every place that “ephemeral” is listed, the authors would replace with “non-persistent”. In the first instance, we will indicate “non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles). <wg chair hat off> As the author, I think we are better to define ephemeral at the beginning as “non-persistent (across power on /off or reboot). Changing the definition at this point, I suspect will simply confuse people. Sue Hares _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
