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

On 7/20/16 05:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> That wording may well lead readers to think that Ephemeral
> configuration, considered as a whole, has a priority.  Since that is not
> true, I would like to further refine this.  How about:
>
> Req-07: Local configuration MUST have a priority that is comparable with
> the I2RS Agent priority for making changes.  This priority will
> determine whether local configuration changes or individual ephemeral
> configuration changes take precedence.  The I2RS protocol MUST support
> his mechanism.

I think you mean I2RS client priority?  But otherwise, I like the text.

Joe

>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 7/20/16 4:05 AM, Joe Clarke 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
>>