> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Gert, Lada, > > On 11/01/2016 13:48, Ladislav Lhotka 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. > Yes, when the system settles, and assuming that all configuration has been > successfully applied, then the applied config nodes MUST exactly match the > intended config nodes. > > This point has been explicitly asked of Rob Shakir and Anees and they have > confirmed that these are the semantics that are expected.
OK, back to square 1. :-) Then I think the requirements should make this point very clear. Lada > > Thanks, > Rob > > >> >>> 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 >> . -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
