Hi, IMO ephemeral data needs to specify all ancestor nodes. This decouples ephemeral and local config. e.g, ephemeral "ipv4" MUST include ancestors /interfaces/interface/ipv4. It MUST NOT borrow the "/interfaces/interface" nodes from local config.
I2RS config validation can refer to config=false nodes. This handles the case where the installed ephemeral data depends on operational state. Andy On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy > > See below. > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > -------- Original message -------- > From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > Date: 6/1/2016 4:41 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]>, Linda Dunbar < > [email protected]>, Benoit Claise <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas > <[email protected]>, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure , > not on how end point handle the "DataStore"? > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Ah.. Interesting viewpoint on the word "overwrite". And I find nothing >> wrong with your viewpoint. >> >> If i2rs only config does not resolve to installable state, how would you >> handle it. Is this a case where i2rs config value does not exist so local >> config is used? I am showing partial installation of i2rs rib model. >> >> If I can see how this works, maybe I can find a way to understand >> juergen's model. >> >> > Why would this work? > You mean the I2RS agent incorrectly accepts an edit that cannot be > installed > because it is invalid, or there are insufficient resources? > > Sue:: valid config. Route needs to resolve next hop to specific interface. > > This is the same as the "no-validate" case for I2RS. > If there is a "when IPv4" clause that is ignored by the agent, such that > the agent > appears to accept "IPv4" fields in an "IPv6" entry, what happens? > (IMO this is 1 reason the no-validate mode is so broken). > > Sue: not the same case. Not invalid config. Just not resolve to interface > to send packet out > > Does the hopelessly invalid data stay in the ephemeral datastore? > Does the agent attempt to (incorrectly) apply the IPv4 parameters to an > IPv6 entry > or does the agent ignore the data (i.e., must be validating the data > somehow > if it knows to ignore it) > > Sue: not this case. Ephemeral config has been validated like all yang > validation. > > Sue >> > > > Andy > > >> >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> >> Date: 6/1/2016 3:11 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> >> Cc: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, [email protected], Juergen >> Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>, Alia Atlas < >> [email protected]>, Benoit Claise <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas < >> [email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure >> , not on how end point handle the "DataStore"? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Andy >>> >>> We currently are specifying i2rs rib model which can overwrite the local >>> config. Implementations experience will provide us with input on the >>> protocols. >>> >>> >> I don't view it that way. >> The local config remains untouched throughout. >> The higher priority ephemeral config value is used instead of the local >> config value. >> The operational state should reflect that ephemeral config is overriding >> the local config. >> The data model for the I2RS version does not have to be the local config >> model. >> >> >> >>> Sue >>> >>> >>> >> Andy >> >> >>> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >>> Date: 6/1/2016 12:34 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected], Juergen Schoenwaelder < >>> [email protected]>, Alia Atlas <[email protected]>, >>> Benoit Claise <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>, Susan >>> Hares <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure >>> , not on how end point handle the "DataStore"? >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree with your suggested approach. >>> >>> >>> >>> Linda >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Andy Bierman [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2016 9:05 PM >>> *To:* Linda Dunbar >>> *Cc:* Jeffrey Haas; Benoit Claise; [email protected]; Juergen >>> Schoenwaelder; Susan Hares; Alia Atlas >>> *Subject:* Re: Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure , >>> not on how end point handle the "DataStore"? >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> If your graphic advice means "the requirements are good enough, move on" >>> >>> then I agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> The datastore framework would be nice to have, but it is very close >>> >>> to the implementation details. It is also attempting to be a superset >>> of all >>> >>> "accepted" implementation choices. >>> >>> >>> >>> By "on the wire" we usually mean a protocol specification. >>> >>> IMO, all that is needed (for editing) is a set of RESTCONF extensions. >>> >>> Some people want to describe the I2RS desired behavior wrt/ how it >>> >>> interacts with the local config. (and many more features...) >>> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps a good first step would be ephemeral data models that do not >>> >>> interact with the local config at all. I2RS is the only protocol of >>> concern and the >>> >>> highest priority client. I2RS just needs to support read/write/notify >>> of ephemeral data. >>> >>> If this is not acceptable then be prepared to wait until all the >>> framework stuff is settled >>> >>> and standardized. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> IETF has been successful for past 20 years in focusing on “Over the >>> Wire” data structure. It would be so much cleaner and straight forward if >>> the YANG modules developed by I2RS focusing on the “Over the Wire” data >>> structure (and with NETMOD to focus on other aspects). >>> >>> The “I2RS ephemeral State” has the needed description for the desired >>> behavior of the data received over I2RS interface. If we follow the IETF >>> practice, it is good enough. >>> >>> Internal implementation framework is always controversial, hard to >>> converge, usually ending up with a document (if completed) that is too big >>> and difficult to read. >>> >>> >>> >>> Providing some source code to show the internal implementation would be >>> much more useful as a reference implementation. >>> >>> >>> >>> The draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is on the architectural >>> framework for datastores as they are used by network management protocols. >>> IMHO, how data stores are used are internal to the end points. >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: >>> http://www.urbanblisslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Done-is-Better-Than-Perfect.jpg] >>> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj50KWat4XNAhULxGMKHRhqDPQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanblissmedia.com%2Fentrepreneur-rules-done-is-better-than-perfect%2F&psig=AFQjCNGKEiPB2iHSqyBiF5609pd72H0L7w&ust=1464822503865777> >>> >>> >>> >>> Linda Dunbar >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:09 PM >>> *To:* Jeffrey Haas >>> *Cc:* Benoit Claise; [email protected]; Juergen Schoenwaelder; Susan Hares; >>> Alia Atlas >>> *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] I2RS Interim Meeting - June 1, 2016 - 10:00am - >>> 11:00am - Topic: Ephemeral State Requirements >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not convinced the IETF can be forced to function as if it were >>> >>> a dev-group in some corporation. This is a volunteer organization so >>> >>> usually solution proposals come from people who have created a solution >>> >>> and they want the WG to standardize it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >>> > At some point the WG needs to agree on normative text instead of >>> iterating >>> > on requirements forever. >>> >>> IMO, it would be in I2RS's best interests if netconf/netmod provided >>> drafts >>> in appropriately normative language covering I2RS requirements. However, >>> we've been in a pathological cycle of: >>> "We don't understand, please give us requirements" >>> "We don't understand your requirements" >>> "You provided examples with your requirements that appear to be attempts >>> to >>> change our protocol - don't do that." >>> >>> The most recent revised-datastore draft would be a good place to document >>> where netmod(/netconf) believes ephemeral datastores (if that's the >>> instantiation) could live, and also how ephemeral configuration state >>> could >>> interact with candidate, startup and running configuration. >>> >>> yang-push covers much of our desired pub-sub behavior. (Yay!) >>> >>> Discussion is required for how to tag security considerations impacting >>> transport into the yang model, in particular for notification. >>> >>> Proposals for secondary identity and priority are also needed. >>> >>> -- Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> >> >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
