Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Hi Juergen, Hopefully my explanations below help clarify. On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: As I understand it, what you are proposing here is not what the section 4 requirements were intended to express. The

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > Hopefully my explanations below help clarify. > > On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >> As I understand it, what you are proposing here is not what

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:19, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Juergen, > > Hopefully my explanations below help clarify. > > On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: >>> >>> As I understand it, what you

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Hi Martin, On 26/01/2016 14:33, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Juergen, Hopefully my explanations below help clarify. On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: As I understand it,

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:19:00PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > Hopefully my explanations below help clarify. > > On 26/01/2016 12:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:31AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >>As I understand it, what you are

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 26/01/2016 15:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:14:20PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: They have a list of IP addresses. Each entry contains: - the configured IP address (if any), - the operational IP address, - an enum indicating the source of the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:36:17PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > >> > >Frankly, you either list all IP addresses of an interface in one place > >and then you need additional information to indicate where they are > >coming from (e.g., which config tweaks them) or you distribute the all > >IP

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > >All fine. > > Okay, so no desire to change -04 (which is good, as -04 is being prepared > for AD handoff) > I do not understand all requirements but I have given up on it. It might be my own stupidity. That said, some parties

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Hi - >From: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> >Sent: Jan 26, 2016 6:50 AM >To: Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> >Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt >... >This can IMO wor

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 18/01/2016 11:32, Gert Grammel wrote: Conerning requirement 4, I would be very happy if I could get metadata telling me - this dynamic operational state has been directly derived from that part of applied config (e.g, this state interface exists because it was configured over

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 16/01/2016 10:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:15:47PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: This direction of the relationship might in some cases be a relatively trivial and predictable 1:1 relationship, in other cases it may be more complex and in the worst case

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Hi Juergen, On 11/01/2016 11:26, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:02:30AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: On 10/01/2016 11:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 05:01:54PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: [...] > This would be rewording this requirement text from: > >4. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding >operational state > >A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

>>to: >> >>4. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding >>operational state >> >>A. Ability to relate intended config nodes with corresponding >>applied >>config nodes >> >>B. Ability to relate applied config nodes with

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 10/01/2016 11:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how you and Juergen do not agree that there are requirements beyond intended/applied state. Perhaps you do not agree with them?

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:02:30AM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 10/01/2016 11:21, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >>The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how you and Juergen do not > >>agree that there are

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:46:44PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > The draft is quite succinct and I’m not sure how you and Juergen do not > agree that there are requirements beyond intended/applied state. Perhaps > you do not agree with them? Refer to requirements 3.(B & C) and 4.(B & C). >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

[As a contributor] As I count it, there are four in favor and two not in favor of the title proposed by Robert, so I’m going to post -03 with that one. Kent On 1/8/16, 9:26 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > >> On 08 Jan

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

> On 08 Jan 2016, at 13:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Juergen, On

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 1/8/16, 7:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: >Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: >>> Hi Juergen, >>> >>> On 07/01/2016

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

> On 08 Jan 2016, at 14:46, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > On 1/8/16, 7:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" > wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >> >>> On Thu, Jan

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> Hi Juergen, > >> > >> On 07/01/2016 16:05, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> >On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 06:18:46PM

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 08 Jan 2016, at 13:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> > >>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:24:45PM +, Robert

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

> On 08 Jan 2016, at 14:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 08 Jan 2016, at 13:53, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Hi Juergen, On 07/01/2016 16:05, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 06:18:46PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: It’s true that the draft is largely centered around the intended/applied config notion, but not exclusively. Specifically, 4-B has "Ability to map intended config nodes

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

On 1/7/16, 12:24 PM, "Robert Wilton" wrote: >I don't have a particular problem with the current title, but if you >don't like visibility/control, then perhaps "Terminology and >Requirements for Enhanced Handling of Operational State"? This looks good to me. If no

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

It’s true that the draft is largely centered around the intended/applied config notion, but not exclusively. Specifically, 4-B has "Ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived state nodes". I think that this might be the only exclusion though and, if it weren’t for it I

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

Juergen, As another non-author, I disagree with this characterization of the draft. The intended/applied configuration is an important requirement but certainly not the only one precisely articulated in the draft. Acee On 1/5/16, 3:02 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

This update addresses comments received during the Last Call. Warning! - the Diff1 and Diff2 outputs somehow mangle the Applied Configuration term. Please look at the draft itself for the correct text. Kent On 1/4/16, 5:17 PM, "netmod on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org"

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Operational State Visibility and Control