Hi Andy, > NMDA does not seem to support templates very well.
On the contrary, I think NMDA supports templates very well. Notably, having worked at Juniper, I’m very aware how the JUNOS templates work, and assure you that both Phil and I (both NMDA authors) wrote that section into RFC 8342 to be compatible with JUNOS. > However, > <running> MUST always be a valid configuration data tree, as defined > in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950#section-8.1>. This is has been discussed before. Yes, the running configuration datastore MUST always be valid, but that does not mean that “<running> alone” must be valid. More specific, it is intended in RFC 8342 that <running> is valid if and only if <intended> is valid. Right now the WG is spinning on the "<running> alone” axle, I think exclusively so clients can validate a <get-config> response without any further effort, even though this doesn’t make sense given that the <get-config> response may: - exclude nodes hidden by access control - include nodes that should be hidden because they’re commented out (i.e., deactivated) - include unexpanded templates - etc. The WG has successfully stalled NMDA to date, forcing NBC-versions of the protocols to assert that NMDA’s statement that <intended> is subject to validation takes precedence. Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
