Thanks Kent, Andy for your responses and the interesting discussion.
Its getting very late here, so I will have to stop with this email for today. 😉

RFC 8342 says in section 5.1.3 for running DS
  “ It MAY include configuration that requires further transformation before it
   can be applied, e.g., inactive configuration, or template-mechanism-
   oriented configuration that needs further expansion. “

And in section 5.1.4 for intended DS
“It represents the configuration after all
   configuration transformations to <running> are performed (e.g.,
   template expansion, removal of inactive configuration) and is the
   configuration that the system attempts to apply.
“

<Shiya> For me, these two explicit statements about templates gave me an 
understanding that <running> stores the unexpanded data while <intended> stores 
the expanded.
And if the RFC is open on storing either the unexpanded or expanded one in 
<running>, there must have been a capability defined to expose how the server 
actually stores these data (transformed or not) isn’t it? Otherwise, how will 
the client know what response he get for a get-config response, isn’t this 
important? Also if some one need to fetch the un expanded data from the device, 
shouldn’t there already be a way defined for this as well?

Also, as I noted earlier, memory gain is a major motivation for using templates 
(especially in Fiber network devices).
I hope this expansion of templates in running DS doesn’t mean we loose such 
gains.

Thanks,
Shiya

From: Kent Watsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 1:05 AM
To: Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Mandatory/default statements and templates (was: Yang 
Template Proposals)


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.


Hi Shiya,


Where does it say <running> contains only data provided by the client in 
<edit-config> operations?
(Nowhere)

To put a finer point on this, it is a long-standing desire that changes to 
<running> happen only with the client’s knowledge.  That said, <running> could 
contain config that was *generated* due to a client-instruction.  For instance, 
the “resolve-system” flag that was recently removed from the “system-config” 
draft or, in Yuma’s case, an instruction that causes a template-expansion to 
occur at time of the <edit-config>.

Kent // contributor

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to