Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751BA12B004 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlF3oqmpUlxA for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F44412D096 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469006304; x=1470215904; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FbTr6shWwLG8udayfOtYUHE/WhXBZwmoryKLfsGKXIA=; b=Cq5GdsN/kAlmmiyivZRQY5dCsMM8PYOF3f48ji5u9WbqnXTw26uVeBcp Dx8LNlykhChcAvBqAjnw4Gwmq97dSQuWYDWxJe7DP/eJVFNyiLdfuYjGc t4C5OSnD9XSGxVwYvZRwUJMc6+JYsorgml1bTolKjQoedKJZCwfKHQyyS Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,393,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="299848434"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jul 2016 09:18:23 +0000
Received: from [10.82.252.95] (rtp-vpn6-1115.cisco.com [10.82.252.95]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6K9IMED003577; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:18:23 GMT
To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'Russ White' <7riw77@gmail.com>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
References: <fc5d171b-82da-0041-3248-8a01d31e9202@cisco.com> <016201d1e11b$6c0c3140$442493c0$@ndzh.com> <5a2feb3c-9f9b-8d4a-91f2-db337d1ceecf@cisco.com> <009801d1e24d$3b92a340$b2b7e9c0$@gmail.com> <019b01d1e24e$8ea9bc70$abfd3550$@ndzh.com> <99078e75-8c89-ee08-9ea3-a5d2c0840671@cisco.com> <009201d1e25a$35af9b10$a10ed130$@ndzh.com> <c2f0dbb8-c558-b738-6241-40fc1cd61349@cisco.com> <eniiljkadm7ncjq8p2nkjn9d.1469003679596@email.android.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <1d3b708a-f8f3-b1e1-cf1d-bc09a87dba4f@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:18:22 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eniiljkadm7ncjq8p2nkjn9d.1469003679596@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/-fFhBJSEILPvD3KVeMB8VCboHAc>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:18:27 -0000

On 7/20/16 05:10, Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco) 
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, but I can't make the I2RS meeting because I'm presenting at the
> end of NETCONF.
>
> I've spoken to Sue and understand that the requirement isn't changing
> here - just the text to describe it.
>
> I think that I'm OK with this new text.
>
> One suggestion: Possibly It might help if the text made it clear that
> the priotiy resolution applies to the complete set of ephemeral config
> vs the complete set of local config. I.e. the requirement is not asking
> for priority resolution between the two config sets on a per datanode basis.

Yes, I had assumed that in my text, but I agree, this should be clear.

Functionally, in my head, I imagine local config to act like an I2RS 
client.  Clients don't have a per-data node priority.  They have an 
overall priority.

Is this consistent with what you're stating here?

Joe

>
> But I strongly support getting the requirements draft completed, and
> hence I suspect that whatever text that you agree in the 2nd I2RS
> meeting will be fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> Sent from my Xperia™ tablet
>
> ---- Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote ----
>
> On 7/20/16 03:42, Susan Hares wrote:
>> Joe:
>> Yes - you are correct.  Can you help me state this requirement -07 better?
>
> What about:
>
> Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration and local configuration MUST
> each have a priority.  This priority will determine whether ephemeral
> configuration or local configuration take precedence.  The I2RS protocol
> MUST support this mechanism.
>
> Is this clear and correct enough?
>
> Joe
>
>>
>> Sue
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Clarke [mailto:jclarke@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:40 AM
>> To: Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; i2rs@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
>> ephemeral)
>>
>> On 7/20/16 02:18, Susan Hares wrote:
>>> <WG hat off> <author hat on>
>>>
>>> Here's text that might replace it:
>>>
>>> Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration state MUST be able to set a
>>> priority on local configuration and ephemeral state.  Based on this
>>> priority implementations MUST be able to provide a mechanism to choose
>>> which takes precedence. The I2RS Protocol MUST be able to support this
>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> I'm a bit confused by the first sentence.  I think what you're stating is
>> that both ephemeral and local configurations MUST have a priority.
>> This priority will determine whether ephemeral configuration or local
>> configuration take precedence.  The I2RS protocol MUST support this
>> mechanism.
>>
>> Am I correct in my interpretation?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>>
>>> Sue
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Russ White [mailto:7riw77@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:09 AM
>>> To: 'Joe Clarke'; 'Susan Hares'; i2rs@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
>>> ephemeral)
>>>
>>>
>>> (wg chair hat off) --
>>>
>>>> I think the idea of extending I2RS priority to local config operators
>>> (e.g., CLI)
>>>> will still work.  Let's take knob 1.  Knob 1 is kind of like the
>>>> on/off
>>> switch.  If I
>>>> don't want I2RS to have any effect on operational state, I'd have
>>>> this
>>> off.  In
>>>> the I2RS priority case, by default my local config could will have
>>>> the
>>> highest
>>>> priority (let's say that's 255 to make it concrete).  In this case no
>>> ephemeral
>>>> config can win.
>>>
>>> I wanted to extend Joe's remarks a bit... On reflection, I actually
>>> think having priority + "this wins" bits is rather confusing, and
>>> opens the door to all sorts of strange behavior. Say I have two items
>>> thus --
>>>
>>> Local config item -- priority 100
>>> I2RS config item -- priority 200, don't overwrite bit set
>>>
>>> If the higher priority is supposed to win, then which item should the
>>> operator find in the resulting running config? Should it be the I2RS
>>> version, because the priority is higher, or the local config, because
>>> the "don't overwrite" bit is set? There doesn't seem to be any clear
>>> way to interpret such a situation.
>>>
>>> It's better to have a single "thing" that determines which
>>> configuration among many wins, rather than two.
>>>
>>> -r
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs