Re: [i2rs] Ephemeral State Requirements discussion

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@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 6C09E12D8AD for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 11:27:17 -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 ymK9iOZKJ1LE for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 11:27:15 -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 98D1812D891 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6148D42162D; Tue, 31 May 2016 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1464719235; bh=xjtJmE3uBQ0vsHdrcA4nkBZLGGw6l445QfJrF04MZ9g=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pibvI5oYv6dCdXreRTmwgW5b+2VskfHMqzKCE4kthqb8somRGV2Kyuwsj9Ego3XoJ 1J0cTuwRVNDa7iRWOWaSfJ46m8pCeYBE8kSrN36LGSTbH4EvkZOzACNRbITL8uWPMZ CGL6LZP8K7ijhLAazlxRuJIhlNLEu+BZ6lxIxv6I=
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 E919742096E; Tue, 31 May 2016 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, i2rs@ietf.org
References: <000601d1bad5$70523090$50f691b0$@ndzh.com> <20160531063840.GA21289@elstar.local>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <026df5be-4a60-f340-60aa-d713a0e75c48@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:27:12 -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: <20160531063840.GA21289@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/QiZMAGrLtHcIibPBRUTlj3wbklc>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ephemeral State Requirements discussion
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 18:27:17 -0000

If I understood you correctly Juergen, you are suggesting using your 
document:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00
as a basis for addressing the I2RS requirements.

I am having trouble understanding how the approach in your document 
would work for ephemeral configured information.
1) The document says that such information is treated like other control 
protocols.
1a) How would one use NetConf or RestConf to write this?
1b) How would the controllable relationship with conventional 
configuration be realized
1c) How would the descriptions of this information be provided? 
(Arguably, this last is not a requirements question, but it would help 
in understanding your proposal.
2) Similarly, since operations have been segregated by datastore, how 
would an I2RS client read the configured information to tell what was 
being applied?
3) How would the I2RS requirement for priority of operation be applied?
4) How would the requirement for reversion to configured values upon 
removal of an I2RS modification be done?

It is very hard as a reader to tell if your approach is acceptable, 
better than, or worse than, the one we have on the table.

As far as I can tell, in terms of a consistent architecture for data 
stores, both approaches consist of creating extra data stores when needed.

Yours,
Joel