On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 3:44 PM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Juergen/Andy, > > > Option #3 >> >> There is a client on the system that makes changes to running just >> like any other remote clients can make changes to running. System >> generate config that is not editable explicit config in running goes >> straight into the applied config in operational. This does not require >> a system datastore (in fact something like a system datastore may >> exist as the _logic_ of the system client, the good old example we had >> is allocting an unused uid for an account that, once allocated, is >> maintained in running). >> >> > Juergen, you mentioned this before. I don’t recall if there were any > responses, but how would this solution address the various concerns that > have been raised? > > > +1 to option 3. > Consider an implementation that moves all the "hidden system logic" off-box > to a controller, such that the initial config is literally supplied by an > external client. > > > Andy, IIRC, you +1’ed Juergen’s previous “option #3”, but can you to > answer the same question about how solution address concerns? > > I do not have any problem with <running> containing active and inactive nodes. That's what has been in place for over 10 years. That's what is written in NMDA. I cannot find any RFC text that says <running> has only nodes created by a client. I cannot find any RFC text that says system-injected config is special, especially since server implementations exist that treat these edits as just another client (although probably a 'root' user client).
Rewriting NMDA and YANG validation to add a new <system> datastore is a major change that will impede deployment. The IETF already had 1 "do-over" because of NMDA. Not so sure a 2nd do-over is going to go over well. Andy > I have yet to hear a single use-case for creating a <system> datastore. > "The client might want" is not a use-case for standardization. > I do not understand the "pure view". Seems like if this was a real problem > to solve, > then NMDA would have included a system datastore from the start. > > > Use-cases and issues were discussed at both the Interim and at IETF 112. > I don’t recall you or Juergen attending either, but the 112-recording > starts at the 23-minute mark here: > https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF112-NETMOD-20211111-1430 > > > K. // as a contributor > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
