Well, statements like "the WG agrees" are problematic for things that have not been discussed on the mailing list. Perhaps it is the people attending the interim agreed? Well, I can't tell, I have not been there...
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:15:56AM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Jason, > > > On Jan 30, 2024, at 11:55 AM, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <jason.ste...@nokia.com> > > wrote: > > > > 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 audio indicates Rob saying this and no one objecting. > Are you objecting? > > > > (the rest of the minutes/summary below also seems to contradict that > > paragraph being a conclusion no?) > > Your comments below are not text-edits to the minutes, so it is unclear how > they apply to the minutes. > > Kent > > > > 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 <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> On > > Behalf Of Kent Watsen > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM > > To: netmod@ietf.org <mailto: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 <http://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 -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
