Link to minutes:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-netmod-01-202401231400/
Reproduced below for convenience.
Please report any updates needed here.
Kent (and Lou)
This virtual interim was soley focused on the "system-config" draft.
Qiufang Ma presented.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config
In the course of two hours, there was a lot of discussion. So much so
that trying to capture all the points verbatim would take too long. A
link to the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAF0fppqBGA.
A high-level summary is:
Qiufang's presentation focused on two main questions?
1) The "origin" issue.
The WG agreed that <system> nodes copied into <running> should
have origin "intended". The system-config draft will "update"
RFC 8342 (NMDA) to state this.
The WG agreed that data-migration is 1) not <system>-specific
concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft.
2) Validity of <running> alone.
The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
clarification the <running> alone does not have to be valid.
E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
<intended>, which is subject to validation.
The WG agreed on a new Option 4: this document doesn't say
anything at all about the validity of <running>. That is,
fully rely on existing 7950 and 8342 statements.
This leaves it up to interpretation.
Templates and inactive configuration are nice for humans, but
unnecessary for machine-to-machine interfaces. That is, the
issues arounds such mechanisms are largely moot in environments
using a controller._______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
