IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [i2rs] ephemeral RPC?

Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.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 E715C12D7F4 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 NImTNOAoNPsV for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 606A512D652 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494799E017A; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1464726440; bh=vEu0QrPqSHBRxsvq+SZFgLzvWi5PTq7nK+cfEiX4cps=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=okyr4+uQUDk0Bc3eQ9wgN59dAEFQTA+g2K8f5Ox0Q0KF183M8k5ugmN4IO4+IGpsM 77toJ/lIZkQ5jz7de/Y598IUJMk/CU0287mVCxTuUcDekCpLlu924zKXkzkLFwLTxT 5O/JiPA2Wpuu9iSLEjHxHpSm1f4DK5R/juwyPR3U=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D36D19E004F; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, i2rs@ietf.org
References: <ac12ae3a-571d-410e-50bb-cd48d58dea82@joelhalpern.com> <005601d1bb7a$5aacbfd0$10063f70$@ndzh.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7147944e-fe4d-4ea2-47af-1264188f426c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:27:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <005601d1bb7a$5aacbfd0$10063f70$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/6ZnSkl0N4IE-lm_TAvlSM6o0Pxc>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] ephemeral RPC?
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: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:27:22 -0000

This may well be just me leaping to assumptions about function 
structuring.  My apologies for raising a red herring if so.

I think this may be following the paradigm in Juergen's draft, where 
accessing data <get...> and <set...> in different data stores uses 
different RPCs?  Is that your intent?

Until I read Juergen's draft, it had never occurred to me that one would 
do it that way.  I had expected that one would perform an operation, and 
target it at a data store.

But if indeed we use different RPCs for the different data stores, then 
I guess we do need versions of <get...> and <set...> that point at 
ephemeral.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/31/16 4:23 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Joel:
>
> I2RS data model is a ephemeral-only data model, and uses an rpc to do rib
> add/delete, route add/delete, nexthop add/delete.  Therefore, we need
> ephemeral rpc support.
>
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 12:34 PM
> To: i2rs@ietf.org
> Subject: [i2rs] ephemeral RPC?
>
> We have agreed that non-ephemeral data must not reference ephemeral data.
>
> However, we have, up till now, not had the notion of ephemeral RPCs.  I see
> that the recent ephemeral requirements draft, as a side-effect of improving
> clarity, creates the notion of an ephemeral RPC.
>
> What is an ephemeral RPC, and why do we have it?
> We have been, up till now, assuming that we could use normal NetConf RPCs to
> set and get the ephemeral information.
>
> Thank you,
> Joel
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email