>-----Original Message-----
>From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36
>To: Robert Wilton
>Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>
>
>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
><j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> If there is time delay between editing intended and the applied
>>>> config matching the edits of intended, then I supose this can happen
>>>> (I delete a resource from intended but it is still around until
>>>> intended has been fully synced). I would find it interesting if some
>>>> edits are
>>> Using applied config for system-controlled entries would require that such
>an entry stays (forever) in applied config even after it has been deleted from
>intended.
>> I think that this would make life harder for clients.
>
>Hmm, I would say the opposite. For one, we could simplify the data models by
>reducing the duplicities in configuration and state trees.
>
Let's look at a practical example and see if we can converge:
1) A Server is happily running with intended == applied config and operational
state is aligned with intended config.
2) A new HW is plugged into that server and that HW has some kind of
identification number
This can practically fall into 3 cases:
a) it's a plug&play device and it is accepted to be used
b) it's an accepted device but shall be configured prior to become operational
c) it's considered a harmful (unplanned) event and the device shall be removed
In terms of a possible implementation, the event
1) would update the applied config which - among others - include the
identification number and update the operational state of that HW in line with
the applied config
2) Since the new applied config differs from the intended config, the client is
notified about the change
3) Upon inspection of the config change, the client decides how to deal with
the new item:
a) accepting it the way it is: pushing down an intended config in line
with the applied config information
b) accepting it with modifications: pushing down a new intended config
with additional leafs
c) rejecting it: raising an alarm indicating the configuration
mismatch, requiring manual intervention
>>
>> With the requirements as they are today, the client gives the intended config
>to the system, which it can monitor until the applied config matches the
>intended config. At this point it knows everything is good and the config is
>fully applied. Over time, if everything is behaving as expected, the client
>can
>reasonably expect that the applied configuration will always converge on the
>intended configuration.
Which is the case above. By updating the intended config the client accepts the
config change.
>
>One could argue that leafs with default values are in applied configuration
>before they appear in intended. So my idea was to extend this to default
>entries of certain lists.
>
>>
>> Using applied config for system-controlled entries would break the simple
>logical relationship between intended and applied configuration, since there
>are now some special entries for which this rule does not always apply.
>
Don't get to the same conclusion, see above.
>The introduction of applied configuration would mean significant
>complications to all protocols, and perhaps even to YANG (although I'd hope
>not). Solving only the synchonicity issue with it is IMO insufficient payoff
>for all
>the troubles.
>
Don't see this either.
>Lada
>
>>
>>>
>>>> always assumed to be synchronous but others may be asynchronous.
>>>>
>>>> And Lada, I think applied may happen to be never identical to
>>>> intended if, for example, hardware is absent or other missing
>>>> resources prevent certain parts of intended to become applied.
>>> Yes, this is the use case of pre-provisioning, which is important, too, but
>>> in
>fact opposite: the question here is whether applied can contain stuff that's
>not
>(and never been) in intended.
>>
>> I think that the answer is basically no, unless it is an error condition and
>> it is
>representing configuration that should be deleted.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Lada
>>>
>>>> My understanding is that applied config in general forms an extended
>>>> subset of intended config. And to fully understand what a device is
>>>> doing, I may need to obtain its entire operational state since the
>>>> applied config may not include state obtained dynamically from other
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>> But I might still all be wrong...
>>>>
>>>> /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/>
>>> --
>>> 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
