Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> [As an individual contributor]
> 
> I think terminology is mostly converging, with the primary hangup
> being if ephemeral/intended are "configuration" or "state".  I'm
> personally in favor of calling both "configuration", as they would
> still contain values like "auto", that require actualization to obtain
> an operational state value...so I think, if it's not state, it must be
> config, right?  Adding to this, we have a general understanding that
> anything that can be configured persistently can also (in theory) be
> configured ephemerally – so it behaves like config in this way too...
> 
> More importantly though, I believe that we're converging on a
> conceptual model and have general agreement that "running + ephemeral
> = intended" and "intended + <actualization> = operational state".
> This seems obvious in hindsight, but it wasn't until the OpenConfig
> folks brought the "intended" term that we wrote it down.

I don't think this covers what the open config people call "actual
config".   Suppose we have (ignoring ephemeral for simplicitly):

       running        operational state
       -------        -----------------
  t0    half              half
  t1    auto              half
  t4    auto              full

I.e., at time t1, we set duplex to auto.  After some time (t4) this is
reflected in the operational state.


In the open config model we'd have:

       running      actual config    operational state
       -------      -------------    -----------------
  t0    half            half             half
  t1    auto            half             half
  t2    auto            half (*)         half
  t3    auto            auto             half
  t4    auto            auto             auto

This illustrates that at time t2, the actual config is still half (*)
in an asynchrounous implementation.  At time t3, the actual config is
in sync with the intended config, and at time t4 the operational state
has been affected.


> I hope we can converge on the terminology and conceptual model in the
> near term, and then use this new foundation for articulating I2RS and
> OpenConfig solutions.

+1  This should be our focus.


/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to