On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:55 AM Jason Sterne (Nokia) 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 alone does not have to be valid.
>
> E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
>
> , which is subject to validation.
>
>
>
I do not have a problem with " SHOULD always be valid" (instead of
MUST).
IMO the lack of standards for the "magic" that converts into
should be fixed.
There was going to be metadata like an "enabled" flag on data
nodes. This never happened.
Too bad, because this solution could support both NMDA and non-NMDA
deployments.
Andy
> (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 *On Behalf Of *Kent Watsen
> *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM
> *To:* netmod@ietf.org
> *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 nodes copied into 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 -specific
>
> concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft.
>
>
>
> 2) Validity of alone.
>
>
>
> The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
>
> clarification the alone does not have to be valid.
>
> E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
>
> , 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 . 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
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
