Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 01:14:40AM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote: >> If I were picked terms, I think I'd go something like: >> base config + ephemeral data + defaults => intended state >I like intended state way more than intended config. I would change >the other two slightly: > provisioned config + ephemeral config => intended state
I dislike called using "ephemeral" with "config". We did this in JUNOS and it was confusing. It's not really config. If we used BGP to tunnel stanzas of XML that looked followed the conventions of bgp.yang, would it be config? If so, what does "config" mean as a term? "ephemeral data" makes it plain that we don't consider this config. >> intended state + learned values => actual state >In reality it is more like this: > intended state + learned values + device properties => actual state Yup, completely agree. >In other words, even if you know the intended state and the learned >values, you most likely won't be able to predict the actual state >precisely without knowing device specific properties. But we likely >ignore that nasty part of reality... Yup, and reality can change when you swap FRUs. >> actual state + counters => operational state >This should be: > actual state + statistics => operational state >Statistics is largely dominated by counters but not only counters. Sound good. Precise language is so important, so I think well-defined terms matter. Then again, one can be completely precise while being completely useless, like my current favorite word, sphygmomanometer. Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
