Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 17/09/2017 21:21, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM
>
>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> - Obviously, inactive can be in <candidate> and I would not rule out
>>    that inactive configuration can be in any other or future
>>    configuration datastores.
>>
>> - Whether protocols support inactive or not does not belong into a
>>    definition of what inactive configuration is. The same for backwards
>>    compatibility considerations etc.
>>
>> So if we define inactive configuration, the definition should be
>> something like this:
>>
>> * inactive configuration: Configuration held in a configuration
>>    datastore that is marked to be inactive. Inactive configuration is
>>    ignored during validation and never applied and actively used by
>>    a device.
>>
>> Yes, we should use 'inactive configuration' everywhere to be
> consistent.
>
> Juergen
>
> Yes, your definition is better than mine; let's add it.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I think that we want to be 
careful here.  Inactive configuration and templating are only meant to 
be examples of how <running> could differ from <intended>, and we really 
aren't trying to provide normative definitions of them.  Is putting a 
definition of 'inactive configuration' in this draft going to 
potentially cause problems for a future 'inactive configuration' 
extension that could possibly want to define the term differently?

If we do decide to incorporate a definition, I would suggest at least 
tweaking it slightly to avoid the possible ambiguity of the last phrase:

* inactive configuration: Configuration held in a configuration
   datastore that is marked to be inactive. Inactive configuration is
   ignored during validation, never applied, and not actively used by
   a device.


Thanks,
Rob