On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:37:51AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On 01/10/2015 09:29, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:58:56PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > >>Again, let's tackle a hard issue before tomorrow's interim meeting - this > >>time the definition of "applied configuration": > >> > >>https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/4 > >> > >>Currently, draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs has this definition: > >> > >> o applied configuration - this data represents the state that the > >> network element is actually in, i.e., that which is currently > >> being run by particular software modules (e.g., the BGP daemon), > >> or other systems within the device (e.g., a secondary control- > >> plane, or line card). > >> > >I think the phrase "represents the state that the network element is > >actually in" is what we so far call operational state. I think what > >people mean with applied configuration is way more narrow. Perhaps you > >mean 'configuration state' instead of 'state'. This also applies to > >the definition of 'intended configuration'. So here is a potential > >rewrite of the definitions in draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt > > > > o intended configuration - this data represents the configuration > > state that the network operator intends the system to be in. > > This data is colloquially referred to as the 'configuration' of > > the system. > > Is this the configuration that the operator sent to the device, or the > configuration that the device has accepted? In normal circumstance > these would be the same, but they would differ if the configuration > wasn't semantically valid and hence rejected by the system. > > If your agree that it is the latter then would it be beneficial for the > description to include it? > > E.g. perhaps something along the lines of: > > intended configuration - this data represents the configuration > state that the network operator intends the system to be in, and that > has been accepted by the system as valid configuration. This data is > colloquially referred to as the 'configuration' of the system.
Yes, I silently assumed that the configuration has gone through validation. > > o applied configuration - this data represents the configuration > > state that the network element is actually in, i.e., the > > configuration state which is currently being being used by system > > components (e.g., control plane daemons, operating system > > kernels, line cards). > This text looks OK to me, although I wonder if it wouldn't be better to > not have the examples of system components, but I don't mind if they remain. The examples were there in the original text but I factored them out into text that went into parenthesis. I think it is good to include the examples since we do have an open debate what 'applied' really means - is something applied if the kernel knows about it or is something applied if the kernel has communicated it all the way to a line card and the ASICs finally have taken note of it? I agree this is a very grey area and we probably need to add text below the definition of the term 'applied configuration' that acknowledges that this is grey area and the definition of applied configuration is fuzzy here by design. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
