Hi, Jan, I do remember that. You mentioned it to me after the interim but I was trying to document the discussion in the interim meeting at that time. I am very glad to bring your proposal to the WG, if the WG thinks it is the case that offline validation of <running> alone is required.
If my understanding is correct, you suggest there is a new flag(we can call it “with-system-auto”) added to the “edit-config” operation for the clients expected to be lazy. When this flag is carried, it indicates to the sever to auto-populate referenced but missed system data node into <running> for the operation to be valid. For the client expected not to be lazy, it’s also the cases that they could explicitly copy/paste system config in <running> without “with-system-auto” flag. What I am not sure is whether this goes against our goal of “client-control(i.e., a read-back of <running> should contain only what was explicitly set by the clients)”, or it is a compromise that had to be made. Best Regards, Qiufang Ma From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Lindblad Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 1:57 AM To: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] Must offline-validation of <running> alone be valid? Sergio, Qiufang, Hi Jan, You correctly wrote: Then the choices become: o 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. o Offline validation of <running> alone IS required § Options: 1. Clients MUST copy/paste any referenced system configuration into <running>, even though it goes against our objective of avoiding-copy when possible. 2. 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
