Joe: Yes - you are correct. Can you help me state this requirement -07 better?
Sue -----Original Message----- From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:40 AM To: Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral) On 7/20/16 02:18, Susan Hares wrote: > <WG hat off> <author hat on> > > Here's text that might replace it: > > Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration state MUST be able to set a > priority on local configuration and ephemeral state. Based on this > priority implementations MUST be able to provide a mechanism to choose > which takes precedence. The I2RS Protocol MUST be able to support this mechanisms. > > Any thoughts? I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. I think what you're stating is that both ephemeral and local configurations MUST have a priority. This priority will determine whether ephemeral configuration or local configuration take precedence. The I2RS protocol MUST support this mechanism. Am I correct in my interpretation? Joe > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:09 AM > To: 'Joe Clarke'; 'Susan Hares'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. > ephemeral) > > > (wg chair hat off) -- > >> I think the idea of extending I2RS priority to local config operators > (e.g., CLI) >> will still work. Let's take knob 1. Knob 1 is kind of like the >> on/off > switch. If I >> don't want I2RS to have any effect on operational state, I'd have >> this > off. In >> the I2RS priority case, by default my local config could will have >> the > highest >> priority (let's say that's 255 to make it concrete). In this case no > ephemeral >> config can win. > > I wanted to extend Joe's remarks a bit... On reflection, I actually > think having priority + "this wins" bits is rather confusing, and > opens the door to all sorts of strange behavior. Say I have two items > thus -- > > Local config item -- priority 100 > I2RS config item -- priority 200, don't overwrite bit set > > If the higher priority is supposed to win, then which item should the > operator find in the resulting running config? Should it be the I2RS > version, because the priority is higher, or the local config, because > the "don't overwrite" bit is set? There doesn't seem to be any clear > way to interpret such a situation. > > It's better to have a single "thing" that determines which > configuration among many wins, rather than two. > > -r > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
