On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 08:06:57AM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > Hi, Juergen, > > > > I agree that if system configuration changes, any reference to it might cause > <intended> to become invalid. As Kent suggested, how about we add some > following text in section 6.1 to clarify: > > Server MUST ensure that any updates of <system> do not render <intended> > invalid. However, any mechanism for handling these circumstances is outside > the scope of this document. >
For me, this translates into "we designed something that has a problem for which we have no solution". I do not think this is sound engineering. > > Or even go one step further, although out of scope, we can gives some > examples to show how to ensure <intended> remains valid: > > · Servers internally marked any invalid configuration in <running> > caused due to <system> changes as “inactive” Well, we have no inactive, so this translates into "we designed something that has a problem and the solution is to use something we still have to define". I do not think this is sound engineering. > · Servers migrate system configuration update in <running>, e.g., by > updating configuration data that references stale system nodes > > · What else? > There were reasons why NMDA has system configuration feeding into operational. We may just rediscover the reasons for this... /js -- 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]
