On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 03:02:08AM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA) wrote: > I think that an implementation that supports templates can indeed have the > situation where the running is not valid. The template (when expanded) may > provide data that completes the data in a way that makes it valid. > > I can see how it is intuitive to consider that validation happens after > template expansion. But it does break the letter of the RFC. >
Templates are interesting since (a) template data should be valid and (b) the expanded config should be valid. My understanding is that both are desirable. The RFCs do not talk about templates and hence people seem to have different interpretations and I do not think it valid to say that interpretations break the letter of the RFC. (And I think it would help if you point to the RFC statements that you think clarify template behaviour.) The WG needs to decide what the expectations are for templates and whether validity of templated config means just (a), just (b) or both (a) and (b). I actually think it should be (a) and (b) but there might be implementations that only do (a) or only do (b). /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
