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

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Regarding the issue on the definition of inactive configuration, in the 
end we think that we don't need to define it for the following reasons:

1) Juergen's new objectives contains a brief description of inactive 
configuration (without defining it).
2) Inactive has been removed from the normative text, instead the 
normative text more generically refers to "configuration 
transformations" and just uses inactive as an example of such a 
transformation.
3) Configuration transformation is defined as:

    o  configuration transformation: The addition, modification or
       removal of configuration between the <running> and <intended>
       datastores.  Examples of configuration transformations include the
       removal of inactive configuration and the configuration produced
       through the expansion of templates.

OK?

Validating that this is sufficient to address your concern maybe easier 
when we post an updated revision with all WG LC markups applied.

Thanks,
Rob


On 17/09/2017 21:21, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM
>
>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> - Obviously, inactive can be in <candidate> and I would not rule out
>>    that inactive configuration can be in any other or future
>>    configuration datastores.
>>
>> - Whether protocols support inactive or not does not belong into a
>>    definition of what inactive configuration is. The same for backwards
>>    compatibility considerations etc.
>>
>> So if we define inactive configuration, the definition should be
>> something like this:
>>
>> * inactive configuration: Configuration held in a configuration
>>    datastore that is marked to be inactive. Inactive configuration is
>>    ignored during validation and never applied and actively used by
>>    a device.
>>
>> Yes, we should use 'inactive configuration' everywhere to be
> consistent.
>
> Juergen
>
> Yes, your definition is better than mine; let's add it.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> /js
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:20:15PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
>>> Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the
> course
>>> of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive',
>>> sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive data'.
>>>
>>> I would find it clearer if the term was used consistently and if
> there
>>> was an explicit definition amongst the other definitions in section
> 2
>>> such as
>>>
>>> inactve configuration: Configuration that is present in <running>
> which
>>> is not in use by the device and which plays no part in validation.
> It
>>> cannot appear in any other datastore.  The protocols that are
> currently
>>> standardised do not support inactive configuration but a number of
>>> proprietary protocols do. Inactive configuration is only exposed to
>>> clients that indicate support for inactive configuration; clients
> not
>>> indicating support for  inactive configuration receive the contents
> of
>>> <running> with the inactive configuration removed.
>>>
>>> This would put a stake in the ground for as and when the concept is
>>> standardised and may reduce the proliferation of the term with
> multiple
>>> meanings.
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:02 PM
>>>
>>>> This starts a two week working group last call on
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04.
>>>>
>>>> The working group last call ends on September 17.
>>>> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and
>>>> believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Netmod Chairs
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> .
>