Hi Jason, > On Jan 30, 2024, at 11:55 AM, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 audio indicates Rob saying this and no one objecting. Are you objecting? > (the rest of the minutes/summary below also seems to contradict that > paragraph being a conclusion no?) Your comments below are not text-edits to the minutes, so it is unclear how they apply to the minutes. Kent > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>> On > Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://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
