Hi Robert, > Just to clarify my point, I disagree with the idea that template mechanisms > as introduced in Dublin could imply that the running data store contains the > expanded data. > > The core problem discussed in Dublin is the large size of the configuration > datastore (i.e. the running DS) that is passed by the Client to the Server. > The primary goal of method#1 is to reduce the size of the running DS. I > believe that method #2 has a similar goal, (and likely method 3, although > there is no draft detailing it). > > A method that would expand data in the running datastore does not address > this core problem (actually a draft would help clarifying what problem such a > method addresses).
Correct. I just added these two requirements: - https://github.com/netmod-wg/template-reqs/issues/12 - https://github.com/netmod-wg/template-reqs/issues/13 Good? > > I suppose that a theory could be defined: a template is valid if its > expansion is valid Thoughts? > About running DS validation, regardless of whether or not templates are used, > my understanding is that whatever a client puts in the running datastore > should ideally be validated before being pushed to a server. This is > important to allow trustable pre-provisioning, i.e. a client having > reasonable confidence that the server would not break when receiving the > running DS. If the running DS contains a template, there should be no > difference: ideally, the client should not send a configuration that is so > broken that the device server would be unable to process it. Correct, I added this requirement: https://github.com/netmod-wg/template-reqs/issues/14 <https://github.com/netmod-wg/template-reqs/issues/14> > - Robert Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
