Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 21:25 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68DE1201F2; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 jhDZE6Ihup8X; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75FB1200C5; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-85-209.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.85.209]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B59EC1AE0388; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:25:19 +0100
Message-Id: <20171220.222519.1257114239789698472.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bclaise@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe856e5c-5760-9bb9-ace3-cec0cfb39278@cisco.com>
References: <e2fd599f-7547-d2f7-d450-f67a3f409ae1@cisco.com> <fe856e5c-5760-9bb9-ace3-cec0cfb39278@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JswHyOk-fQfQtYbBmjuzB6cT944>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:25:23 -0000
Hi, Thanks for this review! Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> 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
- [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-dat… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Vladimir Vassilev
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Vladimir Vassilev
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Vladimir Vassilev
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised… Andy Bierman