Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> If we pick the former, it will not be possible to configure a component with
> >> a system controlled parent (unless you also add the system controlled parent
> >> to the configuration).
> >> [Bart Bogaert] Is there a reason to only have this parent in the state tree
> >> and not in the config tree?
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the question.  Suppose the config tree is
> > empty, and the system boots and populates the state tree with all
> > detected harwdare.  Next, a client would like to pre-provision a
> > module in a chassis that exists in state.  If the leafref is to the
> > config tree, the client would have to create both the chassis and the
> > module in the config tree, since the leafef would otherwise fail to
> > validate.
> >
> >> If we pick the latter you will not get any validation (since it has to be
> >> require-instance false).
> >> 
> >> It is fine w/ me to change the type string to a leafref of the former type.
> >
> > Correction: I am fine with changing the string to a leafref to state.
> 
> This conversation seems to mirrors the we had regarding the i2rs 
> topologoy model

Yes.

>, where we landed on a leafref in 'running' could
> point to a config true node in 'operational-state'

With 'require-instance false'?  That doesn't really mean that it
points to anything in operational state.

> as to apply 
> configuration to, for instance, system-discovered underlays...or
> do I misunderstand, is the intention here for the leafref to point
> to a config false node?

Yes.  If we had revised datastores, this model would probably look
different. 


/martin