On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:00:30PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On 06/10/2015 17:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:38:11AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > >>Hi Kent, > >> > >>On 06/10/2015 01:40, Kent Watsen wrote: > >>>This issue appears to have become more like issue #5 – should we mark > >>>this one a duplicate of the other? > >>I suggest that we can just finalize on the text being discussed to > >>replace 1.D and then resolve issue #1. > >> > >>Jason had proposed this text: > >> > >>When the configuration change for any intended configuration node has > >>been successfully applied to the system (e.g. not failed, nor deferred > >>due to absent hardware) then the existence and value of the applied > >>equivalent of the node (whether that be a corresponding node in the data > >>model, an attribute associated with the intended config node, the > >>configuration node read from a different datastore or context, etc) must > >>match the intended configuration node. > >I have no clue what "an attribute associated with the intended config > >node" or "the configuration node read from a different datastore or > >context" or "etc". means. What exactly is an "applied equivalent of > >the node"? > > > >>Or perhaps this slightly briefer alternative is better?: > >> > >> D. When the configuration change for any intended > >> configuration node has been successfully applied to the > >> system (e.g. not failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) > >> then the existence and value of the corresponding, possibly > >> notional, applied configuration node must match the intended > >> configuration node. > >What is the purpose of the phrase "possibly notional"? > There was a concern that my previous text, i.e. as above but without > "possibly notional", implied that applied configuration had to be > actually represented as real data nodes in a YANG schema, which would > disallow the solutions presented in draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00 and > draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00. > > On balance, my preference is to exclude the "possibly notional" phrase > if the text is sufficiently clear without it.
My understanding is that draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00 proposes to represent applied config as nodes in a different datastore, so there is no need for 'possibly notational'. I do not understand why draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00 is relevant here. Do you mean draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang-00? I do have major concerns about this particular proposal since it changes the YANG data encoding fundamentally. There was another proposal to use attributes, which is also not without problems but it is likely a bit less painful. But again, it all depends on the final definition of what applied config really is. So where is the latest version and how far are we with agreeing on it? Yet another way to look at this is to expose not the applied config in addition to the intended config (I have been told configs can be really large) but instead expose lets say a yang patch that says how the applied config differs form the running config. Having to retrieve two large configs just to diff them locally seems to a potentially expensive exercise, in particular if the difference is often small. I think Randy mentioned something like this before and no there is no I-D. But even with this approach, the definition without "possibly notational' would hold; you would just not expose the applied config entirely but instead a patch that allows to calculate it. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
