On 11/01/2016 20:18, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
Hi Gert,
On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel <ggram...@juniper.net> wrote:
Lada,
The requirement says:
D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration
node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not
failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) then the
existence and value of the corresponding applied
configuration node must match the intended configuration
node.
I don't see that this would limit the case you described below. In
your case there is no intended config, hence there is no
"corresponding applied configuration" either.
You are right, the requirement can be interpreted this way. I thought
that applied configuration was supposed to be identical to intended
after some synchronization period.
This is a very important point to clarify. Can there ever be data in
"applied" that is not in "intended"? I think Anees & Rob previously
said "no", but I might be wrong.
If there is time delay between editing intended and the applied config
matching the edits of intended, then I supose this can happen (I
delete a resource from intended but it is still around until intended
has been fully synced). I would find it interesting if some edits are
Using applied config for system-controlled entries would require that
such an entry stays (forever) in applied config even after it has been
deleted from intended.
I think that this would make life harder for clients.
Hmm, I would say the opposite. For one, we could simplify the data
models by reducing the duplicities in configuration and state trees.
This is the old idea of having the "operational state" datastore,
which would be all config true + all config false nodes. One issue
with this is that the semantics of the node is different in the
different data stores, even if the syntax (by definition!) is the
same. In order to handle this properly you need either two different
description statements, or two "sections" within the description
statement.
list interface {
description-config
"The list of configured interfaces on the device.
...";
description-oper
"The list of interfaces on the device.
System-controlled interfaces created by the system are
always present in this list, whether they are configured or
not.
...";
}
Having two description statements doesn't seem to be the end of the
world. Am I also right in presuming that the description-oper statement
would only be need in a few areas (i.e. for system-controlled nodes)?
If we were able to align the interface config and state trees that would
probably be a fairly significant step towards unifying the YANG models
developed by OpenConfig and those being developed in IETF.
Rob
/martin
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
