Hi Jason, > I think we have a potential solution for this system config that keeps the > running valid. But I'm far more worried about configuration templates. I > don't see how we can possibly keep <running> valid with config templates. > That seems like a major problem to me. But if we ever declare that <running> > doesn't have to be valid, and only <intended> has to be valid, then offline > tools can never validate (ahead of time) the config they actually download to > the server.
It isn’t the case that clients can’t offline-validate <running> with templates (or <running> with apparently-dangling refs to <system>-defined nodes), they just have to work for it a little more. In the case of templates, they’d have to understand how to perform the template-expansion logic and, in the case of dangling <system>-refs, they have to know how to do the merge-logic. In both cases, the general statement is that, if clients want to do offline validation, they need to understand how to “cook” <intended> and validate that instead. K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
