On 28/09/2015 18:17, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com
<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Andy,
On 24/09/2015 19:22, Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
I find this exercise to classify servers as synchronous or
asynchronous mostly useless.
We have both types of instrumentation in our server. They can be
different
on a per-node basis. They can both take a long time or both be
instant, depending
on the instrumentation code the vendor writes.
In any case, the server does not know if the instrumentation has
finished making
the network behave according to the new edit. That would be new
functionality that
no vendor supports at this time. Currently servers return "ok"
if the edit is accepted
into the running datastore. There are no other semantics wrt/
returning "ok".
I'm not sure whether we agree here, but as stated previously, Sec
5.1 of RFC 6241, implies that if the configuration is in the
running datastore then that configuration is expected to be active
on the device.
I do not agree at all that the running datastore means anything other
than the intended confg. A new operation is needed to retrieve
the active config vs. the intended config.
If the running datastore only ever means intended config, then I think
that would imply:
- existing NETCONF servers should reply immediately after the config
has been semantically verified + written to the config subsystem before
the configuration is applied.
- existing NETCONF servers are logically classified (as per
openconfig-netmod-opstate) as being asynchronous w.r.t to the config
requests.
- the existing NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols has no direct mechanism for
indicating a failure to apply any configuration leaf, the only way such
information could be deduced is through related operational state leaves
or notifications.
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod