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

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 09:36 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 3C3F412DA08 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:36:23 -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 Cs00xqr2ygdK for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B7A12B01C for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4792; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469007378; x=1470216978; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5LfwwkQSrRip/vQFNkZ6CdPg8NPf6H6tDEZofBnkaCI=; b=Nm9FeEywwkTOPi3AyWwcZuVdJFRHzsBRDk2gaDxDDXLxaT9TbeUh2s4V QAnpi0WSpdBkXVUcQHgcifrZYBJhxwzBekrfVtn5XHqvnHfh2ouR1+OiJ MqzE5tmqQzXb1FHiIQALCWzjrQ0/mcScjr59AyOw6smB832fLkCYMWh70 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CyAgDhRI9X/4wNJK1dgz9WKlKsVYwbg?= =?us-ascii?q?XoihXgCgS44FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RcAQEEAQEBNjYQBwQLEQQBAQEnByEGHwkIBgE?= =?us-ascii?q?MBgIBARqHeAMPCA65NQ2ECAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhiqBeIJVg?= =?us-ascii?q?kOHWAEEmHI0jESCHolShWeIJYd7HjaEDyAyh3ABAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,393,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="298136994"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jul 2016 09:36:17 +0000
Received: from [10.82.252.95] (rtp-vpn6-1115.cisco.com [10.82.252.95]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6K9aGDD005818; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:36:16 GMT
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "'Russ White'" <7riw77@gmail.com>, 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> <be18c19b-6b54-fa7c-a6a2-a1d3af8c107d@joelhalpern.com> <d26fe3ea-003c-6f1f-99df-59ff41d1b8d6@cisco.com> <a3dba62f-e9e5-84fd-5781-e8f9de28a72f@joelhalpern.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <5ce9458f-27f7-18ab-a301-c130c74ec442@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:36:15 -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: <a3dba62f-e9e5-84fd-5781-e8f9de28a72f@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/bgZi_PH59BU2nXLnOAnJmIQAiCQ>
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 09:36:23 -0000

On 7/20/16 05:31, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Thanks Joe.  Yes, I meant I2RS CLIENT priority, not agent priority.

Sounds like that is what we're going to kick back to the list (i.e., 
your text s/agent/client/).  Thanks, Joel.

Joe

> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 7/20/16 5:30 AM, Joe Clarke wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>