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

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 12 September 2017 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7D4133030 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, 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 CIe0IOoFJbEP for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 508DC132D4A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1590; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505214599; x=1506424199; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1LlKyFMdIeFZQcWpaGh27oyiyIeEgr+fCW8zMaGYlB8=; b=MZRLnNmptut2tiO8y8BhcE2wMgvYWJKCP2JYEY4pW/VGIUE0Kj0jq/Up EFLDQlUYu7MRKzQnMkVZ6/Fz2LZk0xxZkEE0KWdrNxa5Un0/sIW6KK9H4 brBpua5/ubiHYw0FgNV/LJiVtp4LKF5J+CkEF7y8YvHbttoTmufdoEo2H 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BLBACkv7dZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhS2EHosVkHcrmDsKhT4ChHgUAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQMBIw8?= =?us-ascii?q?BBVELDgoCAiYCAlcGAQwIAQGKJQiqaYInizIBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBASKBDoIdg?= =?us-ascii?q?1KCDoJ9iAqCYQWgdZRSi1WHHY1Yh1WBOTYhgQ0yIQgcFYdmP4pDAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,382,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="654557128"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2017 11:09:57 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8CB9vEH001241; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:09:57 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, "j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <511deba5-34ca-dde2-6637-ceaf4c4af125@labn.net> <10476e00-0169-4258-449f-22cc7ca978a8@cisco.com> <E1A72908-D7D6-4FDF-BF77-8E6B0D2CFB4B@juniper.net> <20170911172745.qzsvoluaodfcnb3c@elstar.local>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <845a704c-9e4c-73d1-583e-f521aeefe4b6@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 12:09:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170911172745.qzsvoluaodfcnb3c@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1mmS_09dwrioLaQXntMNFt6R2qM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:10:01 -0000


On 11/09/2017 18:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:12:42PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>     The contents of <intended> are related to the 'config true'
>>     subset of <operational>, such that a client can determine to what
>>     extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking
>>     whether the contents of <intended> also appear in <operational>.
>>
> Editorial: Should this not be "The content of <intended> is" and "the
> content of <intended>"?
I think "contents of <intended> are" is correct because the elements can 
be enumerated.  We also seem to use "contents" in other places in the draft.

>
> There are several possible pitfalls here since (i) <operational> can
> change anytime, (ii) it might not be easy/possible to obtain a
> consistent snapshot of <operational>, and (iii) dynamic datastores can
> provide values that "overwrite" <intended> and hence comparing values
> may not really be sufficient. As long as the text is understood as
> additional explanation and not used to write naive code to determine
> how much of <intended> has been applied, it is fine. Otherwise, it
> may be a source of future problems.
One tweak could be to change "applied" to "in use":

    The contents of <intended> are related to the 'config true'
    subset of <operational>, such that a client can determine to what
    extent the intended configuration is currently in use by checking
    whether the contents of <intended> also appear in <operational>.

Is this better?

Thanks,
Rob

>
> /js
>