Hi Susan, My responses below are based on v12.
Section 9: Pub/Sub Requirements Expanded for Ephemeral State -- Subscribing to Ephemeral state means that there must be some stream of Ephemeral information against which the Subscription can be applied. This will be a different stream than for startup config, and might be a different stream from running config. In addition, it is possible that there will not be a single stream with includes both Operational and Config data. (Likely these are all different from any OpState stream too.) With this in mind: Pub-Sub-REQ-01: Comment #1 Must the subscription service support operational and ephemeral configuration data within a single subscription? Or can two separate subscriptions be used? Applying a single subscription against a single stream is where things are going in the NETCONF at this point. Comment #2 Isn’t all data in Operational data stores ephemeral? I see the mailing list discussions on this terminology topic for the requirements earlier in the document. This is where you said: “Ephemeral state is defined as "ephemeral configuration state" and operational state.” But the terminology fix doesn’t seem to have made it down here. Pub-Sub-REQ-02: Comment #3: Building off Comment #2, is there such a thing as Ephemeral data in Operational data? Or are you talking filtering so that only changes in Operational data are sent. I believe you are intending the second. In that case there might need to be special types of filters needed. Filters such as a count of the number of objects under a tree (e.g., number of routes), or range based filters for an operational value. Section 2, Bullets 5 & 9 and Section 7: Priority Collision. Could you explicitly say when the priority of one write will prevent a lower priority write from occurring? Is it the completion of and response to some POST? I don’t know what time-of-use means. Eric From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:54 PM To: Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco); [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-11 Robert: Version-12 is uploaded. On Ephemeral-REQ-08: >Sue: You are Juergen are concerned about writeable/non-writeable. Martin is >concerned about status/configuration. The I2RS authors believe we are running >into the different operational state models. Each time we change this >requirement we get another >response. The requirement will stay for now. I >suspect the we will be working on the design of the solution after we have >settled on the operational state models. >Rob: >My actual concern is that what I have proposed as a datastore solution cannot >meet this requirement, because I think that only configuration should be >writable, and hence the writable/non-writable property is implicit. We have the case of the ephemeral topology data base that conflicts this work. We will need to work this out at IETF 96 in Berlin. Sue From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:39 PM To: Susan Hares; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-11 Hi Sue, All fine with me. A couple of comments inline ... On 30/06/2016 17:15, Susan Hares wrote: Robert: Thank you for your comments. See resolution of comments below. Version -12 will be sent to the list to handle most of these comments. Sue From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:30 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [i2rs] Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-11 Hi, I've reviewed draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-11 and given a few minor comments below. Generally I think that I understand the requirements stated in this document. Minors comments: 1) Ephemeral-REQ-01 (page 5): Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that does not persist across reboots. If state must be restored, it should be done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS agent. The architecture document indicates that the ephemeral state would (or is that may) also be lost on other circumstances such as process restart of the I2RS agent. Does this need to be clarified in the requirement? E.g. Sue: In our previous discussions, other people suggest that “reboots” covered hardware and software reboot of the I2RS agent. And that the specific nature of the reboot was too-much information for the requirement. Rob: OK. Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that MUST NOT persist across reboots of the device or I2RS Agent subsystem. If state must be restored, it should be done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS agent. 2) Hierarchy: (page 5) Based on the previous description, I would possibly split Ephemeral-REQ-06 up into the following requirements: Old (from ephemeral-state:10): Ephemeral-REQ-06: The ability to augment an object with appropriate YANG structures that have the property of being ephemeral. An object defined as any one of the following: yang module, submodule or components of submodule, or schema node. Old (from ephemeral-state-11): Ephemeral-REQ-06: The ability to augment Yang schema nodes with additional Yang Schema nodes that have the property of being ephemeral. Proposed: Ephemeral-REQ-06: 1. The ability to define a YANG module or submodule schema that only contains data nodes with the property of being ephemeral. 2. The ability to augment a YANG data model with additional YANG schema nodes that have the property of being ephemeral. I will accept this change and release in it version-12. 3) Ephemeral-REQ-07: (page 6): Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration state could override overlapping local configuration state, or vice-versa. Implementations MUST provide a mechanism to choose which takes precedence. This mechanism MUST include local configuration (policy) and MAY be provided via the I2RS protocol mechanisms. I note that this requirement doesn't specify the scope of whether the override mechanism should operate globally or on a per data node basis. I'm not sure whether this needs to be clarified - since the text in the architecture document makes it pretty clear that a global level resolution is sufficient. Sue: Again, we were cautioned to not specify the design, but only provide a result. The global is sufficient. Rob: OK 4) Ephemeral-REQ-08: (page 6): Similar to Juergen's comments, I'm concerned about the writable/non-writable requirement. Ephemeral-REQ-08: Yang MUST have a way to indicate in a data model that schema nodes have the following properties: ephemeral, writable/ not-writable, and status/configuration. I'm somewhat adverse to writable operational state, and hence I would prefer if this requirement was watered down to something like: Ephemeral-REQ-08: In addition to config true/false, there MUST be a way to indicate that YANG schema nodes represent ephemeral state. It is desirable to allow for, and have to way to indicate, config false YANG schema nodes that are writable operational state. Sue: You are Juergen are concerned about writeable/non-writeable. Martin is concerned about status/configuration. The I2RS authors believe we are running into the different operational state models. Each time we change this requirement we get another response. The requirement will stay for now. I suspect the we will be working on the design of the solution after we have settled on the operational state models. Rob: My actual concern is that what I have proposed as a datastore solution cannot meet this requirement, because I think that only configuration should be writable, and hence the writable/non-writable property is implicit. 5) Ephemeral-Req-12, page 7: Presumably the requirement is that the notification must indicate the node that we involved in the collision? I.e. it isn't sufficient to just signal to the client that there has been a collision with some of their configuration? Ephemeral-REQ-12: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When there is a collision, a notification MUST BE sent to the original client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their state. Should this be made explicit? E.g. perhaps: Ephemeral-REQ-12: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When there is a collision, a notification (indicating which data node the collision occurred on) MUST BE sent to the original client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their state. Sue: For some data models, it may be important to provide more than just that. How about: When there is a collision, a notification (which includes an indication of the data node the collision occurred on) MUST BE sent to the original client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues surrounding the collision. Rob: Yes, OK. 6) Ephemeral-REQ-14, page 7: I would suggest potentially rewording this to make the requirement and leeway on the solution more explicit. Ephemeral-REQ-14: If two clients have the same priority, the architecture says the first one wins. The I2RS protocol has this requirement to prevent oscillations between clients. If one uses the last wins scenario, you may oscillate. That was our opinion, but a design which prevents oscillation is the key point. Proposed alternative text: Ephemeral-REQ-14: A deterministic conflict resolution mechanism MUST be provided to handle the error scenario that two clients, with the same priority, update the same configuration data node. The I2RS architecture gives one way that this could be achieved, by specifying that the first update wins. Other solutions, that prevent oscillation of the config data node, are also acceptable. Sue: Accepted – this will be released with version 2. Cosmetic comments: 7) Section 1. Introduction. The requirements are no longer version specific, hence perhaps update the following text from: 1. select features from YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of the I2RS protocol (See sections 4, 5, and 6) 2. propose additions to YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of the I2RS protocol for key functions (ephemeral state, protocol security, publication/subscription service, traceability), to: 1. select features from YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF for the initial I2RS protocol version (See sections 4, 5, and 6). 2. propose additions to YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF for the initial I2RS protocol version for key functions (ephemeral state, protocol security, publication/subscription service, traceability). Sue: We will probably have a subsequent version of the I2RS protocol. I would prefer to leave this as stated so this is clear. 8) Section 1. introduction. I'm not sure that this 3rd bullet is relevant, and possibly could be removed, although equally it doesn't seem to do any harm: 3. suggest protocol strawman as ideas for the NETCONF, RESTCONF, and YANG changes. Sue: There is a protocol strawman that will be submitted based on experience. 9) The document uses a mix of "Yang" and "YANG", probably should just use "YANG". Fixed in version 12. 10) Section 3. Ephemeral State Requirements: >The document refers to "ephemeral configured state" here, but elsewhere (e.g. >3.4) "ephemeral configuration" or "ephemeral configuration state" is used. It >might be helpful for use of these terms to be consistent, I would suggest >"ephemeral configuration" is >sufficient. Sue: Ephemeral state is defined as ephemeral configuration state and operational state in the Rob: It was only a minor nit, I was suggesting consistency of the term, perhaps change "ephemeral configuration"and "ephemeral configuration state" to "ephemeral configured state". Thanks, Rob 3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-11#section-3>. Ephemeral State Requirements In requirements Ephemeral-REQ-01 to Ephemeral-05, Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including both ephemeral configured state and operational state. 11) Ephemeral-REQ-13, page 7: Minor omission in the last sentence. Ephemeral-REQ-13: The requirement to support multi-headed control is required for collisions and the priority resolution of collisions. Multi-headed control is not tied to ephemeral state. I2RS is not mandating how AAA supports priority. Mechanisms which prevent collisions of two clients trying the same node of data are the focus. Proposed: Ephemeral-REQ-13: The requirement to support multi-headed control is required for collisions and the priority resolution of collisions. Multi-headed control is not tied to ephemeral state. I2RS is not mandating how AAA supports priority. Mechanisms which prevent collisions of two clients trying to modify the same node of data are the focus. Sue: Thank you. Version -12 will have this change. 12) Ephemeral-REQ-15, page 7: I would suggest that it might be better to refer to "Ephemeral state" rather than the I2RS ephemeral data-store. Ephemeral-REQ-15: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity and roll-back mechanisms. I2RS notes multiple operations in one or more messages handling can handle errors within the set of operations in many ways. No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into the I2RS ephemeral data-store. Proposed: Ephemeral-REQ-15: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity and roll-back mechanisms. I2RS notes multiple operations in one or more messages handling can handle errors within the set of operations in many ways. No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into the ephemeral state. Accepted change for -15. Thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
