Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Rob, Benoit, I want to pick up on this very specific point. I think Lou’s mails imply a similar position, but I want to be clear. On September 10, 2015 at 04:40:30, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: A common architecture includes a central configuration data store that is being

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > [As a contributor] > > > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > > value means there is no applied value vs. the server does not know > > and does not support reporting the applied value

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

d@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 [As a contributor] > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > val

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

[As a contributor] > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > value means there is no applied value vs. the server does not know > and does not support reporting the applied value for a particular leaf?" > > None of the solutions allow a client to know that.

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > >Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned > > >on the call that for ip addresses there would be three lists; one for > >

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned on

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > >Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned > >on the call that for ip addresses there would be three lists; one for > >intended, one for applied, and one in derived state, where the one in > >derived

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:48:55PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > All solutions expect the server to be able to determine applied status for > every leaf > in the intended config. All solutions require basically the same internal > API support > to check the relevant applied config or operational

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Hi, On 14/09/2015 09:31, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:21, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: Then Lada brought up the example of ip

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Sam Aldrin wrote: > > > > > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > > >>

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Hi Martin, On 11/09/2015 08:38, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Sam Aldrin wrote: On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > wrote:

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Martin Bjorklund writes: > Sam Aldrin wrote: >> >> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) >> >>

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Martin Bjorklund writes: > >> Sam Aldrin wrote: >>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > On Sep 10,

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Hi Mahesh, The answer (today) is that some operator knows the show commands to type, and then knows from the screen full of data that certain config commands are active. It's not hard to imagine that how an API to do this without any magic would be useful. (Hence the openconfig requirement...)

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Hi, comments inline. Benoit Claise writes: > Dear all, > > The YANG coordination team > has > spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and > proposed solutions in

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, A nit on your mail: On September 10, 2015 4:40:39 AM Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, The YANG coordination team has spent some time reading and gathering input on the requirements and

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Lou, Speaking as an embedded device developer, I think the point here is that up until today there are not very many systems that specifically show the applied config in exactly the same "syntax" as used for providing the intended config. Yes, the applied config can be implied from the output

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, I want to pick up on this very specific point. I think Lou’s mails imply a similar position, but I want to be clear. On September 10, 2015 at 04:40:30, Benoit Claise (bcla...@cisco.com) wrote: > > A common architecture includes a central configuration data > store that is being

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Einar, On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) wrote: > Lou, > > Speaking as an embedded device developer, I think the point here is > that up until today there are not very many systems that specifically > show the applied config in exactly the same "syntax" as used for > providing

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > wrote: > > Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied configuration > located in more than one place. Let’s say you change the IP address of an > interface, it is likely that this configuration will

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) > > wrote: >> >> Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied configuration >>

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Benoit, I think Rob and others have already addressed the first issue raised in the comments from your group. For the second point, your mail says that the OpenConfig opstate draft says: * "The proposal does not allow items that are not configured, configured but not present, or system

Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01

Inline: > On Sep 10, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > comments inline. > > Benoit Claise writes: > >> Dear all, >> >> The YANG coordination team >> >> has