Hi,
I conditionally support WG adoption of this draft, with the condition
being that I think that there are technical areas of this draft that
should be changed (I've mentioned these previously).
My interpretation of the approach currently documented in the draft
assumes that the tags are treated as a special type of configuration
that don't quite adhere to normal configuration rules. In particular,
the approach assumes that the server will pre-populate the running
configuration with the server default tags. A client can then fetch and
modify these and push them back to the server. However, I think that
this approach will both bloat the configuration and violates the
principal that the contents of the configuration should be owned by the
client, not the server. And probably raise various other corner case
conditions as well (e.g. what do you do if the server software is
upgraded and the tags change? how do you merge the current client and
new server defaults together?)
Instead, I think that the tags should make use of the NMDA architecture
and be treated entirely as regular configuration:
- <operational> would always report the current set of tags in effect
(system default values, overridden by any tags add/removed/modified via
configuration).
- <running> would only contain any configured changes to the tags
(additional tags could be added, or existing tags could be marked as
being changed or deleted).
- No reset IPC is required, since it is just regular configuration.
I think that the draft should also support NMDA by augmenting YANG
library bis.
Thanks,
Rob
On 06/02/2018 23:47, joel jaeggli wrote:
Hi,
This is the start of a *two* week poll on making
draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 a working group document.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02
This document was most recently discussed at IETF 100.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
This poll ends on February 8.
Thank you!
Joel Jaeggli and IETF NETMOD Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
