Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

<mailto:ggram...@juniper.net>>, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, "netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of sync

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

>>> These terms were edited on today's call, resulting in the following >>>text: >>> >>> Synchronous configuration operation - A configuration request to >>>update >>> the running configuration of a server that is applied >>>synchronously with >>> respect to the client request.

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

g<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied) Kent, The new one looks much better. However the last sentence is confusing with res

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Kent, The new one looks much better. However the last sentence is confusing with respect to intended config. Why is there a need to update the intended config? Proposal: The server MUST fully attempt to apply the configuration change to all impacted components in the server, updating

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Juergen, Rob summarized the discussion well. Since I also have some strange feelings about transactions here, my proposal in the other thread was to define the state of the config at the time the client is notified. Gert Sent from my Apple ][ > On 16 Oct 2015, at 14:19, Robert Wilton

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

>>, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intend

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

om<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs as

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

>Anyway, as long as a regular NC/RC server does not have to pay a price >for this applied config idea, I have no real problem with this since I >am sure the market will sort this out. This goes to the solution - that it should allow servers to opt-in to support applied config. I have also been

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi All, Are there any more comments on the following proposed descriptions, or are these descriptions sufficiently clear to update the requirements draft and resolve issue #6? Synchronous configuration operation - A configuration request to update the running configuration of a server that is

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On 06/10/2015 17:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > >>Hi Kent, > >> > >>Feeding in the various input, I think that this is the best refinement >

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:25:32PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> What does "SHOULD ensure that the request is valid" mean? RFC 6020 > >> says: > >> > >> When datastore processing is complete, the final contents MUST obey > >> all validation constraints. This validation processing is

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi, On 13/10/2015 09:48, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Juergen, On 06/10/2015 17:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Kent, Feeding in the various input, I think

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:59:52PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > >As said before, an OS kernel usually does not track where resource > >parameters were coming from. (An interface has a set of IP addresses > >and the kernel usually does not know which addresses were coming from > >a configuration

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:59:52PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > >As said before, an OS kernel usually does not track where resource > > >parameters were coming from. (An interface has a set

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi Juergen, On 06/10/2015 17:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Kent, Feeding in the various input, I think that this is the best refinement that I've come up with: Synchronous configuration operation - A configuration request

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On 06/10/2015 17:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: >> >>> Hi Kent, >>> >>> Feeding in the various input, I think that this is the best

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On 01/10/2015 00:55, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: One comment. On Sep 30, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: Hi Kent, Just some quick comments inline ... On 30/09/2015 15:31, Kent Watsen wrote: [As a contributor] I find that the term

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:56:56PM -0400, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > Robert, > > It seems this discussion has run out of steam and we’ve come to a head > on this issue. > It seems we have some actions we can take based on the list of three bullets > below as part of > that conclusion

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

tf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied) Robert, It seems this discussion has run out of steam and we've come to a head on

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

One comment. > On Sep 30, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Kent, > > Just some quick comments inline ... > > On 30/09/2015 15:31, Kent Watsen wrote: >> [As a contributor] >> >> >> I find that the term "system" is a bit ambiguous in this context. It is >>

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

[As a contributor] I find that the term "system" is a bit ambiguous in this context. It is talking about the NMS, the server, or both together? [KENT] I believe that we're talking about the NETCONF/RESTCONF/ server, specifically in how it processes update requests. Anyway, I've tried to

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi Andy, On 24/09/2015 19:22, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I find this exercise to classify servers as synchronous or asynchronous mostly useless. We have both types of instrumentation in our server. They can be different on a per-node basis. They can both take a long time or both be instant,

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > On 24/09/2015 19:22, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > I find this exercise to classify servers as synchronous or asynchronous > mostly useless. > We have both types of instrumentation in our server. They

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi Kent, On 23/09/2015 17:15, Kent Watsen wrote: Jonathan Hansford writes: The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for asynchronous systems. Would it not be worth clarifying the relationship between the

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Hi, I find this exercise to classify servers as synchronous or asynchronous mostly useless. We have both types of instrumentation in our server. They can be different on a per-node basis. They can both take a long time or both be instant, depending on the instrumentation code the vendor writes.