Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for this review!


Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> In order not to be the bottleneck in the process and assuming that the
> document will be in "publication requested" pretty soon, here is my AD
> review of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08
> 
> -
> 
> 
>        5.3.2. Missing Resources
> 
>    Configuration in <intended> can refer to resources that are not
>    available or otherwise not physically present.  In these situations,
>    these parts of <intended> are not applied.  The data appears in
>    <intended> but does not appear in <operational>.
> 
> 
> I understand what you want to say.
> Let me take an example. I have a router with a Line Card configured
> and working well. if I remove the LC, the configuration should still
> be in the <running> and <intended> but not in <operational>.
> However, based on figure below, the notion of "inactive" nodes might
> be misleading. Indeed, people might read that the LC is inactive, so
> the LC configuration should not be in <intended>
> 
>      +-------------+                 +-----------+
>      | <candidate> |                 | <startup> |
>      |  (ct, rw)   |<---+       +--->| (ct, rw)  |
>      +-------------+    |       |    +-----------+
>             |           |       |           |
>             |         +-----------+         |
>             +-------->| <running> |<--------+
>                       | (ct, rw)  |
>                       +-----------+
>                             |
>                             |        // configuration transformations,
>                             |        // e.g., removal of "inactive"
>                             |        // nodes, expansion of templates
>                             v
>                       +------------+
>                       | <intended> | // subject to validation
>                       | (ct, ro)   |
>                       +------------+
> 
> I understand that "inactive nodes" has a different meaning.
> 
> Proposal:
> OLD: removal of "inactive" nodes
> NEW: removal of the nodes marked as "inactive"

Ok, I will make this change.

> - In the C.1 example,
> 
>    <system
>        xmlns="urn:example:system"
>        xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
> 
>      <hostname or:origin="or:dynamic">bar</hostname>
> 
>      <interface or:origin="or:intended">
>        <name>eth0</name>
>        <auto-negotiation>
>          <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled>
>          <speed>1000</speed>
>        </auto-negotiation>
>        <speed>100</speed>
>        <address>
>          <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>          <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>        </address>
>        <address or:origin="or:dynamic">
>          <ip>2001:db8::1:100</ip>
>          <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>        </address>
>      </interface>
> 
> I guess it "or:dynamic" should be replaced by "or:learned"

Yes, I'll fix this.

> Justification:
> 
>      identity learned {
>        base origin;
>        description
>          "Denotes configuration learned from protocol interactions with
>           other devices, instead of via either the intended
>           configuration datastore or any dynamic configuration
>           datastore.
> 
>           Examples of protocols that provide learned configuration
>           include link-layer negotiations, routing protocols,_and DHCP._";
> 
> 
> _Editorial:_
> 
> - number the figures

Ok.

> - section 8.2
>    This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
>    registry [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>].  Following
>    the format in [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>], the the
>    following registrations are requested:
> 
> duplicated "the the"

Fixed.

Chairs, should I post a new version with these fixes?


/martin