Hi WG, (and in particular to those who attended the interim). The summary below mostly matches my memory of the discussions, but I don't really remember us concluding on this:
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 rest of the minutes/summary below also seems to contradict that paragraph being a conclusion no?) I thought it was going to remain somewhat optional/indeterminate if running will be valid: * Servers may or may not enforce running to be valid (i.e. they may only validate intended as a proxy for validating running) * Clients can't necessarily expect to be able to offline validate running, although it may work in circumstances where the operator doesn't use templates or inactive config *or* the client reproduces the server logic for the running->intended transforms Jason From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM To: netmod@ietf.org Subject: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. 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