Re: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

The draft interim minutes have been updated.

Thank you Jason, Jurgen, and Carsten for your valuable comments.

Link to minutes:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2024-netmod-01-202401231400/

The minutes are reproduced below for convenience.

Please report any updates needed here.

Kent (and Lou)


===== START =====

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 consensus in the room was that <system> nodes copied into
     <running> should have origin "intended".  The system-config
     draft may "update" RFC 8342 (NMDA) to state this.

     The consensus in the room was that data-migration is 1) not
     <system>-specific concern and 2) is out-of-scope for this draft.

  2) Validity of <running> alone.

     The consensus in the room was 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 consensus in the room was a new "Option 4" - i.e., 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.

===== STOP =====