Re: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jason,

> On Jan 30, 2024, at 11:55 AM, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG,
> (and in particular to those who attended the interim).
>  
> The summary below mostly matches my memory of the discussions, but I don’t really remember us concluding on this:
>  
>      The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
>      clarification the <running> alone does not have to be valid.
>      E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
>      <intended>, which is subject to validation.

The audio indicates Rob saying this and no one objecting.
Are you objecting?


>  (the rest of the minutes/summary below also seems to contradict that paragraph being a conclusion no?)

Your comments below are not text-edits to the minutes, so it is unclear how they apply to the minutes.

Kent


> I thought it was going to remain somewhat optional/indeterminate if running will be valid:
> Servers may or may not enforce running to be valid (i.e. they may only validate intended as a proxy for validating running)
> Clients can’t necessarily expect to be able to offline validate running, although it may work in circumstances where the operator doesn’t use templates or inactive config *or* the client reproduces the server logic for the running->intended transforms
>  
> Jason
>  
> From: netmod <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim
>  
>  
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext <http://nok.it/ext> for additional information.
>  
> 
> Link to minutes:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-netmod-01-202401231400/
>  
> Reproduced below for convenience.
>  
> Please report any updates needed here.
>  
> Kent (and Lou)
>  
>  
>  
> This virtual interim was soley focused on the "system-config" draft.
> Qiufang Ma presented.
>  
> Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config
>  
> In the course of two hours, there was a lot of discussion.  So much so
> that trying to capture all the points verbatim would take too long. A
> link to the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAF0fppqBGA.
>  
> A high-level summary is:
>  
>   Qiufang's presentation focused on two main questions?
>  
>   1) The "origin" issue.
>  
>      The WG agreed that <system> nodes copied into <running> should
>      have origin "intended".  The system-config draft will "update"
>      RFC 8342 (NMDA) to state this.
>  
>      The WG agreed that data-migration is 1) not <system>-specific
>      concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft.
>  
>   2) Validity of <running> alone.
>  
>      The WG agreed to let 7950-bis "update" 8342 (NMDA) with the
>      clarification the <running> alone does not have to be valid.
>      E.g., clients may have to perform transforms to calculate
>      <intended>, which is subject to validation.
>  
>      The WG agreed on a new Option 4: this document doesn't say
>      anything at all about the validity of <running>.  That is,
>      fully rely on existing 7950 and 8342 statements.
>  
>      This leaves it up to interpretation.
>  
>      Templates and inactive configuration are nice for humans, but
>      unnecessary for machine-to-machine interfaces.  That is, the
>      issues arounds such mechanisms are largely moot in environments
>      using a controller.