On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:34 AM Fengchong (frank) < frank.fengch...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi juergen, > Please see my comments inline. > > /frank > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Jürgen Schönwälder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de] > 发送时间: 2021年8月3日 12:15 > 收件人: Fengchong (frank) <frank.fengch...@huawei.com> > 抄送: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>; Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net>; > Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>; > netmod@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [netmod] 答复: system configuration sync mechanism > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:45:40AM +0000, Fengchong (frank) wrote: > > Hi andy and all. > > > > I don’t think get-data with origin can solve the issues below: > > > > > > 1. Some leafs like interface type CAN NOT be modified by user, but > can be referenced by other config nodes(e.g. using leafref or occur in > when/must). The validation will be fail if these leafs are not be > configured by user now explicitly (we assume these leafs are optional and > no default value). > > The interface type in the RFC 8343 module is config true. YANG does not > allow you to refer to config false nodes in constraints that apply to > config true nodes. A core principle is that the content of a configuration > datastore can be validated without knowing the actual state of the system. > > Frank: yes, interface type is a config node, but it isn't allow to be > modified. If a config node reference if-type, in order to validate data > successfully ,user must have to config if-type with determined value again. > For example, user must config if-type with 'ethernet' for ethernet0/0/1. I > don't think it makes sense. The if-type has been created by system, when > running config is merged to <operational>, it can work and the validation > is successful. If you think running datastore is self-contained, I will > think the system configuration should be imported to running datastore > automatically to ensure successful validation > > I doubt another rewrite of ietf-interfaces would gain much support. There are many objects that have user access restrictions that are not standardized with machine-readable statements. I am interested in the 2 use cases that Balazs described. The system does its own access control (not NACM) wrt/ these objects. The server just rejects the edit requests, even though the standard YANG indicates it should be writable. Some standard extensions to tag the data would help applications better predict server behavior. There is no way in YANG 1.1 to have a config=true node reference config=false in the XPath. (Well, we implement it but the developer has to enable it). I do not see the point of the system datastore if it contains config=true nodes, just so that XPath can reference it. I do not agree that it is useful or easy to implement, especially since the contents of <system> are visible in <intended>. Representing the possible instances is non-trivial (e.g. pattern allowed, not a fixed name, resulting in 6 million possible values). If the system datastore contains config=false nodes, then you are talking about a rewrite of the YANG validation architecture and a new version of YANG. IMO there is no need for that. Andy > 2. Some instances are generated by system, but these instances can > be referenced by other config nodes. The validation must be fail if these > instances are not be recreated by user explicitly now. > > Yes, a configuration datastore is self-contained. If a client wants to > configure the interface x, it has to define the interface x in the > configuration. Note that this should not be confused with a system > generating an interface x after probing the hardware. Note the difference > between operational state, applied config, and running config. > > Frank: for example , predefined policies are provided by system, user > configuration can reference these predefined policy directly. but because > predefined policies are not configured by user explicitly, the validation > will be fail. If you want to get a successful validation , user MUST have > to redefined the system predefined policies. > So, system predefined data are useless. I think it is unreasonable. > > > > Let me add that the underlying model is that the client(s) have control > over the configuration. A system making ad-hoc changes to the config (even > with the best intentions) will be surprising. In this model, the only way > to inject config into running on system boot is to have a client making > changes to running following the normal procedures - at least conceptually. > This means that conceptually the other clients need to be aware that there > is a system client injecting configuration. > > If you follow this logic, it seems wrong to define a system datastore that > is somehow magically merged into running - and it is not needed. > > Frank: system configuration not only includes some instances generated on > reboot time, but also includes the configuration when hardware is plugged > in, or a function is enabled (for example, in huawei's implementation, when > QOS function is enabled, many qos predefined policies are created by > system) or a user-created list instance is created, some leafs' value will > be created by system. So , we need a system datastore to hold these > configuration. > > > 3. User may need know what the original system configuration is, > if we get data from <operational>, you may get the modified system > configuration.(for example, user modify or template is expanded, or only > active instances) > > If you have multiple clients managing shared configuration, then yes it is > good if they are aware of what is going on. I am not sure yet that exposing > other clients intentions via additional datastores and defining merge > mechanisms and semantics is the way to go. > > > I don’t care about whether system datastore is imported to running or > intended datastores. But I think if a config node reference a system node, > the validation (running or intended datastores) will be successful even if > the system node is not configured by user explicitly. > > I am concerned about having to define what "is imported" means precisely > and whether moving to a model multiple datastores have to be merged before > validation is the way to go. We already acknowledged that there are > template expansions in some implementations without working out how they > work. > > > Especially on the client side, if a client need validate all data > retrieved from server, the validation SHOULD be successful. If system > configuration are not imported to running, at a minimum, the client needs > to know what the original system configuration is. Another way is adding > with-system-used parameter to get-config operation to retrieved all user > configuration and system configuration referenced by user configuration. > > Let me repeat, in the original model, the running configuration datastore > is self-contained and can be validated without knowing additional > datastores. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
