Hi WG,
(and in particular to those who attended the interim).
The summary below mostly matches my memory of the discussions, but I don't
really remember us concluding on this:
The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
clarification the <running> alone does not have to be valid.
E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
<intended>, which is subject to validation.
(the rest of the minutes/summary below also seems to contradict that paragraph
being a conclusion no?)
I thought it was going to remain somewhat optional/indeterminate if running
will be valid:
* Servers may or may not enforce running to be valid (i.e. they may only
validate intended as a proxy for validating running)
* Clients can't necessarily expect to be able to offline validate running,
although it may work in circumstances where the operator doesn't use templates
or inactive config *or* the client reproduces the server logic for the
running->intended transforms
Jason
From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Link to minutes:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-netmod-01-202401231400/
Reproduced below for convenience.
Please report any updates needed here.
Kent (and Lou)
This virtual interim was soley focused on the "system-config" draft.
Qiufang Ma presented.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config
In the course of two hours, there was a lot of discussion. So much so
that trying to capture all the points verbatim would take too long. A
link to the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAF0fppqBGA.
A high-level summary is:
Qiufang's presentation focused on two main questions?
1) The "origin" issue.
The WG agreed that <system> nodes copied into <running> should
have origin "intended". The system-config draft will "update"
RFC 8342 (NMDA) to state this.
The WG agreed that data-migration is 1) not <system>-specific
concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft.
2) Validity of <running> alone.
The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
clarification the <running> alone does not have to be valid.
E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
<intended>, which is subject to validation.
The WG agreed on a new Option 4: this document doesn't say
anything at all about the validity of <running>. That is,
fully rely on existing 7950 and 8342 statements.
This leaves it up to interpretation.
Templates and inactive configuration are nice for humans, but
unnecessary for machine-to-machine interfaces. That is, the
issues arounds such mechanisms are largely moot in environments
using a controller.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
