I thought I just learned that there is no system origin value. Well, if the values come from intended, then that is what the origin is. I do not think we should change that, I assume that was a reason why we report intended and not running etc. Perhaps the decision was wrong but if it was, we should take a general decision on this and not a per datastore decision. Note that this also touches on whether we want to expose template mechanisms or factory defaults or whatever comes next in the origin values. I guess I am concerned about getting into many uncoordinated updates of NMDA.
/js On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 03:10:53PM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > The document tries to update the definition of or:intended in NMDA, you may > want to refer to the last paragraph of section 1.3 > (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-netmod-system-config-09%23section-1.3&data=05%7C02%7Cjschoenwaelder%40constructor.university%7Cde3ca57726034ae086e508dd00078c0d%7Cf78e973e5c0b4ab8bbd79887c95a8ebd%7C0%7C0%7C638666754642650653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7KDTKORHIdvkHHbnsZVedqGGxtfiWGTHpj%2FQcyvSwek%3D&reserved=0), > which says: > "This document also updates the definition of "intended" origin metadata > annotation identity defined in Section 5.3.4 of [RFC8342]. The "intended" > identity of origin value defined in [RFC8342] represents the origin of > configuration provided by <intended>, this document updates its definition as > the origin source of configuration explicitly provided by <running>, and > allows a subset of configuration in <intended> that flows from <system> yet > is not configured or overridden explicitly in <running> to use "system" as > its origin value." > > Best Regards, > Qiufang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 10:23 PM > To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> > Cc: Jason Sterne <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] Re: origin "system" in system-config-09 > > This then likely makes sense but if system is merged into intended, then > values should have or:intended, no? > > /js > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 01:42:45PM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > > Hi, Jürgen, > > > > It is, but the identity defined in the I-D is only derived from > > ds:conventional. To use sysds:system as the origin value, I think it needs > > to be derived from or:origin, which I am unsure if possible, since the > > identical identity (i.e., system derived from origin) is already defined in > > RFC8342. > > > > Best Regards, > > Qiufang > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 8:10 PM > > To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jason Sterne <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Re: origin "system" in system-config-09 > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 12:08:05PM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > > > Hi, Jason, all, > > > > > > I think all system configuration that is non-deletable should be defined > > > in <system>, if things differ from case to case, I have concern that it > > > is hard to enumerate all cases. The draft already states that <system> > > > may change dynamically. Deletable system configuration should be present > > > in <running>, otherwise how is it possible for the client to delete it? > > > If it is in <running>, doesn't it have an origin value "intended"? If we > > > make a distinction this way, is it safe to infer that all nodes using > > > or:system are originating from <system>? Am I missing something? > > > > > > Jürgen has suggested to use sysds:system to report configuration > > > originating from <system>, but I am unsure if that is possible to define > > > another identical identity also derived from "origin" identity? > > > > It is defined in your ID... > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
