On 20/07/2016 11:18, Joe Clarke wrote:
On 7/20/16 05:10, Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)
wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, but I can't make the I2RS meeting because I'm presenting at the
end of NETCONF.
I've spoken to Sue and understand that the requirement isn't changing
here - just the text to describe it.
I think that I'm OK with this new text.
One suggestion: Possibly It might help if the text made it clear that
the priotiy resolution applies to the complete set of ephemeral config
vs the complete set of local config. I.e. the requirement is not asking
for priority resolution between the two config sets on a per datanode
basis.
Yes, I had assumed that in my text, but I agree, this should be clear.
Functionally, in my head, I imagine local config to act like an I2RS
client. Clients don't have a per-data node priority. They have an
overall priority.
Is this consistent with what you're stating here?
It wasn't. In fact, even after speaking with Sue I was misunderstanding
the requirement.
I previously thought that the requirement was either:
"all local config" is higher priority than "all ephemeral config" or
vice versa.
But I now understand that the requirement is on a per client basis. E.g.
some clients may override the local config whereas others do not.
Now I understand the actual requirement, the recent text that you posted
to the I2RS alias looks good to me.
Thanks,
Rob
Joe
But I strongly support getting the requirements draft completed, and
hence I suspect that whatever text that you agree in the 2nd I2RS
meeting will be fine.
Thanks,
Rob
Sent from my Xperia™ tablet
---- Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote ----
On 7/20/16 03:42, Susan Hares wrote:
Joe:
Yes - you are correct. Can you help me state this requirement -07
better?
What about:
Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration and local configuration MUST
each have a priority. This priority will determine whether ephemeral
configuration or local configuration take precedence. The I2RS protocol
MUST support this mechanism.
Is this clear and correct enough?
Joe
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:40 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
On 7/20/16 02:18, Susan Hares wrote:
<WG hat off> <author hat on>
Here's text that might replace it:
Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration state MUST be able to set a
priority on local configuration and ephemeral state. Based on this
priority implementations MUST be able to provide a mechanism to choose
which takes precedence. The I2RS Protocol MUST be able to support this
mechanisms.
Any thoughts?
I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. I think what you're
stating is
that both ephemeral and local configurations MUST have a priority.
This priority will determine whether ephemeral configuration or local
configuration take precedence. The I2RS protocol MUST support this
mechanism.
Am I correct in my interpretation?
Joe
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:09 AM
To: 'Joe Clarke'; 'Susan Hares'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
(wg chair hat off) --
I think the idea of extending I2RS priority to local config operators
(e.g., CLI)
will still work. Let's take knob 1. Knob 1 is kind of like the
on/off
switch. If I
don't want I2RS to have any effect on operational state, I'd have
this
off. In
the I2RS priority case, by default my local config could will have
the
highest
priority (let's say that's 255 to make it concrete). In this case no
ephemeral
config can win.
I wanted to extend Joe's remarks a bit... On reflection, I actually
think having priority + "this wins" bits is rather confusing, and
opens the door to all sorts of strange behavior. Say I have two items
thus --
Local config item -- priority 100
I2RS config item -- priority 200, don't overwrite bit set
If the higher priority is supposed to win, then which item should the
operator find in the resulting running config? Should it be the I2RS
version, because the priority is higher, or the local config, because
the "don't overwrite" bit is set? There doesn't seem to be any clear
way to interpret such a situation.
It's better to have a single "thing" that determines which
configuration among many wins, rather than two.
-r
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
.
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
