Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Hi Gert, > > > On 11 Jan 2016, at 14:25, Gert Grammel <ggram...@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > Lada, > > > > The requirement says: > > D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration > > node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not > > failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) then the > > existence and value of the corresponding applied > > configuration node must match the intended configuration > > node. > > > > I don't see that this would limit the case you described below. In > > your case there is no intended config, hence there is no > > "corresponding applied configuration" either. > > You are right, the requirement can be interpreted this way. I thought > that applied configuration was supposed to be identical to intended > after some synchronization period.
This is a very important point to clarify. Can there ever be data in "applied" that is not in "intended"? I think Anees & Rob previously said "no", but I might be wrong. /martin > > > > > Besides that, the case you mentioned should be clearly in scope. > > Great, then I am open to discussing what this could mean for the > existing modules (ietf-interfaces, ietf-routing, ACL etc.). > > One useful change to YANG semantics could be that a leafref with > require-instance=true would refer to applied > configuration. Specifically, the ACL module could then simply use > "if:interface-ref" (with require-instance=true) as the type for > "input-interface". > > Thanks, Lada > > > > > > > --Gert > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav > >> Lhotka > >> Sent: 07 January 2016 11:20 > >> To: NETMOD WG > >> Subject: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> a good use of applied configuration could be to formalize the concept > >> of > >> system-controlled entries as defined in RFC 7223, routing-cfg, and > >> probably > >> elsewhere, too. > >> > >> My idea is that system-controlled interfaces or other entries would > >> appear in > >> applied configuration, but not in intended configuration until > >> something needs > >> to be really configured. We could then permit leafrefs from intended > >> configuration to refer to leafs in applied configuration. One case > >> where this > >> would be useful is the ACL module, where match conditions refering to > >> interfaces currently have to use plain strings as references to > >> interface names. > >> > >> However, the above idea seems to be at odds with requirement 1D in > >> opstate- > >> reqs-02. I wonder: could that requirement be relaxed or removed so > >> that the > >> above use case can be supported? > >> > >> Thanks, Lada > >> > >> -- > >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> netmod mailing list > >> netmod@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
