Hi Rob, The text looks good. With respect to D we probably need more wordsmithing:
D. Support for best effort and rollback-on-error error handling semantics. The configuration protocol, or default server behavior, MUST specify whether the configuration is applied in a best effort fashion, or using "rollback on error" semantics - where all configuration changes in the request are undone if processing of any part of the configuration update failed. --> how would the client know that a certain operation is supported in an atomic or non-atomic manner by the server. In my view the default should be the client assumes best effort and the server is allowed to do better. Hence no need for a MUST. A configuration protocol, or server, SHOULD provide support for rollback-on-error behavior and MAY choose to provide support for best effort semantics as well. Wondering how much we need here. Assuming the server supports rollback, then do we need protocol extensions for that? Assuming the server doesn't support rollback. Then do we need anything special in the protocol to re-configure the config to emulate something like a rollback? My point is: given that transaction is a requirement, would we need to require here anything more that is not a consequence? Perhaps it is better to limit or even avoid text about transactions and just define the state of the applied config after error. I see 3 cases so far: 1) atomic: after error the applied config is identical to the config before the error 2) sequence: if the config is applied in a sequence and a specific leaf fails, the leafs that have been configured before will keep the intended config, leafs not yet processed keep the applied config and the failed leaf is undefined 3) all leafs in error are undefined, all error free leafs use the (new) intended config as their applied config. Thoughts? Gert Sent from my Apple ][ On 16 Oct 2015, at 14:13, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Kent, Here is my attempt at word smithing section 3: The old D and E have been merged together (now labelled as C). A new D has been added to try and define transactional error handling semantics without introducing the term transactional. 3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations A. A server may choose to support only synchronous configuration operations, or only asynchronous configuration operations, or both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations in a client specified per-operation basis. B. Support for synchronous operations as per the definition of "synchronous configuration operation". C. Support for asynchronous operations as per the definition of "asynchronous configuration operation". Servers that support asynchronous configuration operations MAY also provide a verify operation that a client can request from the server to return information regarding the difference between the intended and applied configurations. D. Support for best effort and rollback-on-error error handling semantics. The configuration protocol, or default server behavior, MUST specify whether the configuration is applied in a best effort fashion, or using "rollback on error" semantics - where all configuration changes in the request are undone if processing of any part of the configuration update failed. A configuration protocol, or server, SHOULD provide support for rollback-on-error behavior and MAY choose to provide support for best effort semantics as well. Any comments? Thanks, Rob On 15/10/2015 18:32, Kent Watsen wrote: Again, with better formatting for the list: 3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations (see terms) A. A server may only support synchronous configuration operations, or may only support asynchronous configuration operations, or may support synchronicity to be client specified on a per-operation basis. C. Support for synchronous configuration operations requires the server to block sending a response to the client until it is able to able to determine whether there are any errors in the request or errors from applying the configuration change. D. Support for asynchronous configuration operations requires the server to send a response to the client immediately indicated that the request was accepted and send a notification to the client when the intended config is fully effective or there are any errors from applying the configuration change. E. Support for asynchronous configuration operations MAY also provide a verify operation which a client can request from the server to obtain information regarding the difference between the intended and applied configurations. Kent On 10/15/15, 1:22 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net><mailto:kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: Requirement #3 was discussed on today's call. We agreed to remove the words "distributed" and "transactional" and to reword it in terms of "configuration operations". The resulting text follows: 3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations (see terms) A. A server may only support synchronous configuration operations, or may only support asynchronous configuration operations, or may support synchronicity to be client specified on a per-operation basis. C. Support for synchronous configuration operations requires the server to block sending a response to the client until it is able to able to determine whether there are any errors in the request or errors from applying the configuration change. D. Support for asynchronous configuration operations requires the server to send a response to the client immediately indicated that the request was accepted and send a notification to the client when the intended config is fully effective or there are any errors from applying the configuration change. E. Support for asynchronous configuration operations MAY also provide a verify operation which a client can request from the server to obtain information regarding the difference between the intended and applied configurations. We have consensus on the above, but wanted to rewrite it relying more on the terms from the Terminology section, and also potentially merge E into D. Anybody want to take a stab at it? Thanks, Kent On 10/14/15, 8:00 PM, "Nadeau Thomas" <tnad...@lucidvision.com><mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com> wrote: On Oct 14, 2015:7:51 PM, at 7:51 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net><mailto:kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: On 9/28/15, 1:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de><mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:03:57PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: Popping the stack on this issue, the issue remains as to what to do with requirement 3: 3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management systems I fail to understand 'transactional' and 'distributed' here. I hope that these terms will be clarified on tomorrow's call. There is also a chance that these terms will be removed from the text altogether, as they may be viewed as unnecessarily qualify the synchronous/asynchronous terms. And frankly, I am not sure why the management _systems_ are classified to be synchronous or asynchronous - I think we are talking about protocols between a management system and a device. Aye, I didn't see that before. First off, elsewhere in the draft the term "system" is used 7 times to refer to the device (e.g., NC/RC server). The term "system" is otherwise not defined. But to your main point, we have been discussing the terms a/synchronous to have to do with internal server processing of an edit request, but in '3' the terms are being used to qualify a management system, which can't be right. I think that '3' should be rewritten to be a statement about devices, not a statement about management systems. It might be better to frame this in terms of a client and a server. ‹Tom Anyway, I am not sure 3. is properly worded until someone defines 'transactional', 'distributed', 'synchronous management systems' and 'asynchronous management systems'. The agenda for tomorrow's interim! :) Kent _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod