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

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.

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