IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 11 September 2015 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD67A1B2EA4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTBA27Lgey_c for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 110CF1B2DFE for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18703 invoked by uid 0); 11 Sep 2015 13:29:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2015 13:29:15 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id FpV61r01A2SSUrH01pV91H; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:29:14 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EbVbHpWC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=ff-B7xzCdYMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=zYmfZQLjFTOujMHk0jIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=FaGfcWtDJX1rrVu/ElFugeUYY+3IDTqWnL5H/u3tMzI=; b=etvjKxCiHnht/c5P/MC9qZw5d2It4vZ2tMBRcuBYgCxmSjpXVw6Fg62mtD9k1nygo6IDADHkBG++QHnm5vqYSqLP5TPcofBX/qiwceXVy+W8FTi7wNcqM87QVaUB0sSz;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:40854 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ZaOO3-0001Dn-GW; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:29:07 -0600
To: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
References: <25E74703-B15C-4CE1-8FE3-A35EE875507B@lucidvision.com> <55F2B187.5030604@cisco.com> <6BE85265-0E47-4DED-A92D-B11A6FDDD08B@lucidvision.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <55F2D71B.4050303@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:28:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6BE85265-0E47-4DED-A92D-B11A6FDDD08B@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JBovIerTDa8aBOux8qohbP1LDjM>
Cc: netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:29:20 -0000


On 9/11/2015 8:09 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>>> 3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management
>>> >>   systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management
>>> >>   systems
>>> >> 
>>> >>    a. For asynchronous systems, the ability to request a protocol
>>> >>        operation to not return (i.e. block) until the intended
>>> >>        configuration has been fully synchronized.
>> > I'm not sure why 3 (a) is a requirement, or its unclear to me where this is specified in the openconfig-netmod-opstate draft.
> 	Anees/Rob, can you guys please add some color to the above descriptions to help clarify things for Robert?
I see (3) but not (3.a) in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01#section-4.2
so am unsure how 3.a made it on the list.

also, I don't object to 3.a if *users* say they need it.

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email