On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:49 AM Robert Peschi (Nokia) <robert.peschi= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > > > template expansion in the running DS ? > > Whether one could interpret that the running DS may or may not contain > expanded data (and I think personally that it should not, in view of how > NMDA defines the intended DS), the very idea of templates is to reduce the > size of the running DS that is passed from the Client to the Server. My > understanding is that the running DS contents is the same in the client and > in the server. So when the device expands the templates it should put it > elsewhere than in the running DS: > > - In NMDA: the device would locate the expanded data in the intended DS > - In non-NMDA: the device would locate the expanded data its > application SW and reflect it in a dedicated R/O YANG tree for the client > to read what the device has actually expanded > > > > In other words, it looks to me that expanding the data in the running DS > would ruin the purpose of a template mechanism. > > > IMO requiring the client to provide data already provided by a template or else <running> will fail validation tests defeats the purpose of templates. > Best regards, > > Robert > Andy > > > *From:* Deepak Rajaram (Nokia) <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 12:13 PM > *To:* Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) <[email protected]>; > maqiufang (A) <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [netmod] Re: Mandatory/default statements and templates (was: > Yang Template Proposals) > > > > While reflecting on the discussions, i am asking myself these questions > and i think it will be better if we could capture our thoughts together, as > i see different interpretations. > > > > 1> Template definition: > > - Is this client data? meaning explicitly configured by the client? > Yes, in my view > - Where does it reside(Datastore view): As it is explicitly > configured, in the running. of course, there are arguments that a > explicit > set is not a requirement for it to be in running, but in this case, as > the template is defined explicitly , i am assuming it to be in running. > > 2> Template validation: in case it is treated as client data, should this > not be validated during definition itself? Of course, if it is under > anydata, this is not possible > > 3> Template expansion: > > Where does it reside? In NMDA, we say it is in intended DS, > but what about non-nmda servers? in running? > > > > Regards, > > Deepak > > > > *From:* Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 3:41 PM > *To:* maqiufang (A) <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [netmod] Re: Mandatory/default statements and templates (was: > Yang Template Proposals) > > > > Hi Qiufang, > > > > Thanks and see inline some response with tag [Shiya]. > > > > - Shiya > > > > *From:* maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 9:03 AM > *To:* Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [netmod] Re: Mandatory/default statements and templates > (was: Yang Template Proposals) > > > > You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is > important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > Hi, Shiya, > > > > Please see my reply inline. > > > > *From:* Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2024 9:02 AM > *To:* Kent Watsen <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [netmod] Re: Mandatory/default statements and templates (was: > Yang Template Proposals) > > > > > > 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. > > [Qiufang] Yes, that’s my understanding as well. And I believe that’s also > the intention of authors after extensively discussion on the list. > > [Shiya] Glad that we are inline. > > 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? > > [Qiufang] I don’t think the RFC is open on storing either the unexpanded > or expanded one in <running>, RFC 8342 is clear on this point. Maybe you > are referring to non-NMDA? I guess that is because config template has > never been standardized in IETF. If we are going to work on this, I think > this is something we need to make it clear. > > [Shiya] I was not referring to anything. I was just taking as assumption, > some of the interpretations that I got in this mail chain saying that > <running> can hold expanded data. I agree that we should provide more > clarity on what this means in both NMDA/non-NMDA env. > > Also, as I noted earlier, memory gain is a major motivation for using > templates (especially in Fiber network devices). > > [Qiufang] Maybe, but it always needs to be expanded in the datastore > (e.g., <intended>). I also think other motiviations like configuration > reuse and consistency assurance to reduce errors and misconfigurations. > > I hope this expansion of templates in running DS doesn’t mean we loose > such gains. > > [Qiufang] If it is expanded in <running> (which I hope not), I assume > <running> needs the same memory space as not using the template. But still, > use of templates simplifies the configuration delivery. > > [Shiya] This is indeed my worry as well. > > Thanks, > > Shiya > > > > Best Regards, > > Qiufang > > *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] >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
