As I stated at the mic today, I think the way REQ-07 is written is a bit
broad. This was evidently the intent, but I have a proposal.
Can we not treat "local config" (e.g., CLI changes) as an I2RS client
with its own I2RS priority? If all players (I2RS and local config) play
with the same priority concept, then one can easily control what gets
precedence.
For example, if I want to temporarily overlay ephemeral-provided changes
with local config, I could increase the local config priority. When I'm
done with that, I set the priority back. By default, the local config
priority would be the lowest value to allow for ephemeral changes to
take precedence.
I do not think this will have a negative impact on topology as I have
read it, but if this doesn't make sense in some use cases, the priority
could be ignored.
Hopefully I've described this well so that it makes sense.
Joe
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
