On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Steve Braaten (sbraaten) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Ephemeral = “short-lived” or “changes frequently” > > > > There is nothing to stop an implementation from storing the latest > “ephemeral” state in a “persistent” way such that it returns to that state > (the last known state) if it restarts for any reason (planned or > un-planned). > > > > My humble opinion. > There is little (or no) difference between a NETCONF server that boots and gets its startup config from a configuration server, and an I2RS agent that boots and gets its ephemeral state from an I2RS client. In NETCONF, NV-storage is mostly an implementation detail. In I2RS, the architecture says its data MUST NOT persist across a reboot. (No explanation why interoperability is harmed if an agent persisted its I2RS data). > > > Steve > > > Andy > > > *From:* i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar > *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:09 PM > *To:* Dean Bogdanovic <[email protected]>; Susan Hares <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Joel Halpern Direct <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]>; Gunter Van De Velde < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] [OPS-DIR] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - > (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion > > > > Is “ephemeral” same as “volatile” (whose opposite state is > ”non-volatile”)? > > > > Is “non- ephemeral” same as “persistent” or “ non-volatile”? > > Linda > > > > *From:* OPS-DIR [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Dean Bogdanovic > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2016 2:39 PM > *To:* Susan Hares > *Cc:* Joel Halpern Direct; [email protected]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A; Gunter > Van De Velde; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OPS-DIR] [i2rs] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - > (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion > > > > Sue, > > > > IMO, ephemeral has two meaning in i2rs architecture > > > > 1. it doesn’t survive reboot > > 2. you can’t roll back to a previous ephemeral state > > > > Dean > > > > On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Deborah: > > > > Section 2 is exactly the place I would put the definition of ephemeral. > > > > Sue > > > > *From:* BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2016 9:50 AM > *To:* Susan Hares; 'Fred Baker (fred)'; 'Gunter Van De Velde' > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Joel Halpern Direct' > *Subject:* RE: [i2rs] [OPS-DIR] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - > (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion > > > > Hi all, > > > > As Alia is a co-author, I was assigned as the responsible AD for this > document. The document is not with the RFC Editor – it’s been approved by > the IESG with a revised ID needed to address comments raised by the IESG. > And so the current discussion. > > > > I had also raised the concern on needing more clarity on the definition of > ephemeral during my AD review. The authors added some information. That > clearly was not enough. As the term is used multiple times in the document > and is the basis for another draft on requirements > (draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state) which refers extensively to the > architecture document, I agree the authors need to add more definition. > Fred has a good suggestion – the term should be visible in a glossary > section early in the document. It’s not currently included in Section 2’s > Terminology – Sue, how about adding it to that section? > > > > I think the authors know what is needed and thank everyone for the > discussion and their time reviewing. > > > > Thanks, > > Deborah > > > > > > > > *From:* i2rs [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Susan Hares > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2016 9:18 AM > *To:* 'Fred Baker (fred)' <[email protected]>; 'Gunter Van De Velde' < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Joel Halpern Direct' < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] [OPS-DIR] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - > (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion > > > > Fred: > > > > Thank you for the review, and your comments here. I wished I’d asked > about the word ephemeral earlier. > > > > Sue > > > > *From:* Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2016 2:59 PM > *To:* Gunter Van De Velde > *Cc:* Susan Hares; [email protected]; [email protected]; Joel Halpern Direct > *Subject:* Re: [OPS-DIR] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - (3/24 > to 4/3) Call for opinion > > > > My comment was a review comment, that the word was being used in a way > that wasn't consistent with its dictionary definition (something with a > short lifetime, quite irrespective of birth/death processes) or common > usage (at least in my context). At this point, the draft has been sent to > the RFC Editor, so to my mind this discussion is mostly moot. If in your > other drafts you are pointing people to a glossary in the architecture > document (which I imagine you already are) and the architecture document > defines the term as you are using it, you have probably done enough. > > > > On Mar 24, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Gunter Van De Velde < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am ok nowadays with using the terminology “Ephemeral”, although for a > non-natve speaker it is non-trivial exotic word, particular if the intended > usage doesn’t 100% reflect the Webster dictionary intended meaning. > > > > It is only about a year ago i started reading up on i2rs and discovered > this particular terminology, and at the time a google search on this > terminology was not very conclusive and resulted to some confusion. > > I understand very well the confusion at play here from non-native english > speaker perspective. > > > > Adding text to explain the context in which the term Ephemeral is > useful/advised. fwiw now that i am used to seeing ‘Ephemeral' as > non-permanent config across reboot, i’m adapted its intended purpose… > > > > Is the goal to explain the intended meaning in each draft/rfc mentioning > it? > > > > Be well, > > G/ > > > > On 24 Mar 2016, at 18:02, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
