Re: [Netconf] issues with processing onboarding information (zerotouch)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

Following up on this thread, I'm beginning to make the changes,
but there are a couple items where input would be helpful:

1) regarding this:

   > b) Clarify that the scripts MUST also be idempotent, in case
   >    the bootstrapping process falls into a loop.  Alternatively,
   >    we could introduce a requirement on the scripts to supply
   >    some sort of clean-up command; then the only state retained
   >    would ever be the currently running boot-image, which is 
   >    fine.  Thoughts?

What's being discussed here is the case where the script succeeds, 
but a subsequent step (e.g., commit) fails.  In this case, do we
say:

 a) scripts MUST be idempotent.  This sounds good, but I wonder
    how possible this is.

 b) scripts MUST supply a clean-up command that removes all state
    created by a successful execution of the script.  This seems
    easier to code.

Note: if no objections, I'll go with (b).



2) regarding this:


   > Should we add more zerotouch "progress-type" enums, and maybe
   > make more of them mandatory?
   >
   > Details: module ietf-zerotouch-bootstrap-server contains the 
   > RPC report-progress, which has input leaf "progress-type",
   > which is an enumeration.  Currently, the enums follow
   > this pattern:
   >
   > - bootstrap-initiated
   > - bootstrap-complete
   > - <step>-warning
   > - <step>-error
   > - informational
   >
   > where <step> has values: parsing, boot-image, pre-script,
   > config, and post-script.
   > 
   > a) Should we add additional well-typed values for visibility
   >    reasons (i.e. more debug information sent to the bootstrap
   >    server)?  Specifically, these two:
   >
   >     - <step>-initiated
   >     - <step>-success
   > 
   > b) assuming (a), should we make more of the reporting of
   >  progress mandatory?  Currently only "bootstrap-complete"
   >  is mandatory, with everything else being a SHOULD.

That kind of says it all, any thoughts on (a) and (b)?

Note: if no objections, I'll go with (a) only and, for (b), just
make "bootstrap-initiated" mandatory.



Thanks,
Kent // author