Sergio, Qiufang, > Hi Jan, > You correctly wrote: > > Then the choices become: > Offline validation of <running> alone is NOT required > Servers internally validate <running> via validating <intended> > > SB> but in fact this is what declared, for my understanding, in RFC 8342, for > which “validation” is done on “intended” by the server , as also shown in > figure 2 of the RFC. Is it needed to change also RFC?
According to RFC 8342, *both* running and intended have to be valid at all times. Section 5.1.3 says: 5.1.3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8342#section-5.1.3>. The Running Configuration Datastore (<running>) ... However, <running> MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-8.1>. Section 8.1 of RFC 7950 was the section I referred to in my previous comment. Section 5.1.4 says: 5.1.4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8342#section-5.1.4>. The Intended Configuration Datastore (<intended>) ... <intended> is tightly coupled to <running>. Whenever data is written to <running>, the server MUST also immediately update and validate <intended>. In my judgement, changing the fundaments of RFC 7950 and 8342 is not going to happen any time soon (for good reason), and there are other (better) options. > Offline validation of <running> alone IS required > Options: > Clients MUST copy/paste any referenced system configuration into <running>, > even though it goes against our objective of avoiding-copy when possible. > Defer work to be a YANG-next effort. In order to move forward, I would propose working out some more options in this list. I have suggested a few to the authors that I think are better than the two above, but I will leave it to the authors make the call for what they want to bring up for discussion. Best Regards, /jan
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
