Hello, Some comment on draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-00. General: I support this work, I see it as important.
I think this draft should be dependent on the immutable draft. I see limited value of system-configuration if there is no way to protect It from client modification. Ch 1) Why is explicit copying bad? Why do we need resolve-system parameter? the You should motivate that. Ch 1.4) edit-config and edit-data cannot be used towards the startup datastore. Copy-config can. " If the target datastore of the <edit-config>/<edit-data> or <copy-config> is "candidate", the server's copy referenced nodes from <system> to the target datastore is delayed until a <commit> or <validate> operation takes place." This means that the device has to remember that resolve-system was used. Is this fact visible for other clients? What if someone overrides items that were planned for resolve-system? Other clients (not the one that used the resolve-system) will be confused. What happens if I have a must statement including a "count () <= max" on list items. Another client might create max number of list entries. This could prevent the device from adding new list-entries based on resolve-system. IMHO delaying the copy is a bad idea. 1.5.2) IMHO we should have the same capability in Netconf too. 2) Define what does it mean if a part of system configuration is not active/ not applied? In which datastore is it visible? If I explicitly copy a conditionally-active item into <running> (while its condition is still not met) does it become active? 3) 3.1) The headers seem strange. I would consider changing them. #Ch3 is about Static Characteristics of what? Regards Balazs
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
