Re: [netmod] Draft Minutes for Virtual Interim

["Jason Sterne (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

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

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]> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 7:21 PM
To: [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 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.