This is an official NETMOD working group call for consensus around the
requirements referenced
below and discussed in detail at the interim meeting held Thursday, September
10, 2015. At that meeting, the
chairs went over each requirement in detail and called for any objections to
each requirement (and sub-requirement). The question that was asked was “Are
there any objections to requirement X in general meaning as it is currently
written or with minor/editorial changes to how its written?” There were no
objections to any of the requirements, as is detailed in the meeting minutes.
However, to confirm these statements the co-chairs are opening this question to
the WG for period starting today, Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5PM EST.
This period will close on Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5PM EST. If you
commented on the list previously, or at the meeting, there is no need to repeat
yourself; we have your position on
We will make a call of consensus shortly thereafter.
For your reference, the requirements can be found at this URL:
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/netmod-opstate-requirements
but I will paste them into this message explicitly to be complete.
—Tom (as co-chair)
Terminology
From: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01
In order to understand the way in which a network operator or network
management system may need to interact with a device, it is key to
understand the different types of data that network elements may
store or master:
o intended configuration - this data represents the state that the
network operator intends the system to be in. This data is
colloquially referred to as the 'configuration' of the system.
o applied configuration - this data represents the state that the
network element is actually in, i.e., that which is currently
being run by particular software modules (e.g., the BGP daemon),
or other systems within the device (e.g., a secondary control-
plane, or line card).
o derived state - this data represents information which is
generated as part of the system's own interactions. For example,
derived state may consist of the results of protocol interactions
(the negotiated duplex state of an Ethernet link), statistics
(such as message queue depth), or counters (such as packet input
or output bytes).
1. Ability to interact with both intended and applied configuration
a. The ability to ask the operational components of a system
(e.g., line cards) for the configuration that they are currently
using. This is the "applied configuration".
b. applied configuration is read-only
c. The data model for the applied configuration is the same as
the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)
d. For asynchronous systems, when fully synchronized, the data
in the applied configuration is the same as the data in the
intended configuration.
2. Applied configuration as part of operational state
a. the ability to retrieve the applied configuration and
derived state nodes in a single protocol operation.
3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management
systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management
systems
a. For asynchronous systems, the ability to request a protocol
operation to not return (i.e. block) until the intended
configuration has been fully synchronized.
b. The protocol operation's response would indicate the result
of the operation (success, failure, partial, etc.)
4. Separation of configuration and operational state data; ability
to retrieve them independently
a. be able to retrieve only the derived state aspects of operational state
b. be able to retrieve only the non-derived state aspects of operational
state
5. Ability to retrieve operational state corresponding only to
derived values, statistics, etc.
// this is a duplicate of # 4-a
6. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding operational state
a. ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied config nodes
b. ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived state nodes
c. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable
7. Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure
a. Scope is limited to IETF-defiend modules
b. multiple domain-specific trees are okay
c. multiple namespaces are okay
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
