Hi, Jurgen, Martin, -----Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bj?rklund Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 8:02 PM To: j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de Cc: maqiufang1=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system configurations copied/pasted into <running>?
Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > I personally believe this notion of a system datastore is actually a > bad idea. A loopback interface, for example, is system generated and > it exists in operational but usually not in intended. I think it is > wrong to think that a system datastore feeds into intended. After all, > system config also comes and goes at the will of the system. I am not > following this in detail but I fear this work likely creates more > damage than that is solves serious real-world problems. [Qiufang Ma] There is often a desire to reference a system configuration or configure a descendant node of system configuration. How to keep <running>/<intended> valid when leaf-ref a system configuration which is only present in <operational>? Or do we think that explicitly configuration in <running> should always be the case? I strongly agree. I didn't understand that part of the proposal. I guess the discussion about origin system confused me; if system feeds into intended then the origin will be intended. [Qiufang Ma] If <system> feeds into <intended>, the server MUST remember a particular data node is from system or from intended, those previously present in <operational> with origin=system will keep the origin unchanged. This work does not change that behavior. Best Regards, Qiufang Ma /martin > > /js > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:45:56AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > I think that the proposal is that <system> should feed into <intended> > > rather than directly into <operational>. The reasoning for this is to > > allow configuration to depend on system defined configuration during > > validation without requiring that configuration to be copied into > > <running>. Clients would still be allowed to explicitly express the system > > configuration is running as well - e.g., if they wanted a full > > configuration that they can validate off box. > > > > In your example below, I would probably mark the origin of the lo > > interface, the name leaf, and description leaf as "intended", but the type > > is "system". I think that this would be similar to how I would expect a > > default value to be reported. I.e., if the running config explicitly sets > > a leaf to its default value, I think that it is more informative to report > > that as origin "intended" rather than "origin" default. But I don't think > > that RFC 8342 proscribes what is be used in these cases. > > > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > // As a contributor > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin > > > Björklund > > > Sent: 24 November 2021 10:44 > > > To: j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > > > Cc: maqiufang1=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for > > > system configurations copied/pasted into <running>? > > > > > > Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 03:21:14AM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But suppose the node is a list entry (e.g., an interface) or a > > > > > leaf with the > > > same value. In this case, it is not clear which origin should be > > > used. I think it would be ok to use "system" in this case. > > > > > > > > For me, <running> is explicit config and hence it has > > > > precedence. The precedence must be a function of how the > > > > datastores related, it should not depend on which values a config leaf > > > > has. > > > > > > Here's a simple example. > > > > > > Suppose <system> has: > > > > > > <interface> > > > <name>lo</name> > > > <type>loopback</type> > > > <description>added by system</description> > > > </interface> > > > > > > and <intended> has: > > > > > > <interface> > > > <name>lo</name> > > > <description>set by a client</description> > > > </interface> > > > > > > Now we follow the picture in RFC 8342: > > > > > > +------------+ > > > | <intended> | // subject to validation > > > | (ct, ro) | > > > +------------+ > > > | // changes applied, subject to > > > | // local factors, e.g., missing > > > | // resources, delays > > > | > > > dynamic | +-------- learned configuration > > > configuration | +-------- system configuration > > > datastores -----+ | +-------- default configuration > > > | | | > > > v v v > > > +---------------+ > > > | <operational> | <-- system state > > > | (ct + cf, ro) | > > > +---------------+ > > > > > > > > > So now we merge intended and system into operational state. First > > > we add system to get: > > > > > > <interface origin="system"> > > > <name>lo</name> > > > <type>loopback</type> > > > <description>added by system</description> > > > </interface> > > > > > > and then we add intended to arrive at: > > > > > > <interface origin="system"> > > > <name>lo</name> > > > <type>loopback</type> > > > <description origin="intended">set by a client</description> > > > </interface> > > > > > > > > > Doesn't this make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
