The draft interim minutes have been updated. Thank you Jason, Jurgen, and Carsten for your valuable comments.
Link to minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-netmod-01-202401231400/ The minutes are reproduced below for convenience. Please report any updates needed here. Kent (and Lou) ===== START ===== 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 consensus in the room was that <system> nodes copied into <running> should have origin "intended". The system-config draft may "update" RFC 8342 (NMDA) to state this. The consensus in the room was that data-migration is 1) not <system>-specific concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft. 2) Validity of <running> alone. The consensus in the room was 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 consensus in the room was a new "Option 4" - i.e., 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. ===== STOP ===== _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
