Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended>
Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 27 September 2017 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 A7A79134DE1; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 7KQCEO-kMBrX; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02981134DE0; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4219; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506528762; x=1507738362; h=subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G8JoTALB2EYCI3bqtclb2pnkdtGszJXSQ18j989UOzk=; b=XYH51SqHBraWFMt+ahl0gFM6a2ntdoShosa3oSPFcW/MtXjFPX5Lx4Lb 8D9VC1AhfRAaicdeF60AtX2rhAhA5gCj0y1jNSSJQtqyqQspmrT+vXL5E o3cM08IQQFs8cPFSgzUKxlAcLJdxrSx9M82Z8c9NsvGHAnxRl9gn11aGv Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DoAQCLzMtZ/xbLJq1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBhEBuhB+LE5BgljmCBAojhRgChR4VAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQEEASMPAQU6BxALEggCERUCAkkOEwgBAYolCBCoLIIniwQBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEBHAWBDoIdg1OBaiuCfYQ/gQSCVIJgBaEjh16NAYITiUgkhweKDYNjh1mBOTUigQ4yIQgdFR+HSD+IJCyCFQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,445,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="657867575"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2017 16:12:37 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.161] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-161.cisco.com [10.63.23.161]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8RGCbMh027985; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:12:37 GMT
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org
References: <20170918.200734.1805388289423863575.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHTD_6yQj1QFn0BsPg8hbkuUc9guEB6rhG46W1jnNRh=bA@mail.gmail.com> <99b9a2c6-4bb4-121f-0cba-925cefe09712@cisco.com> <20170919.115559.1080249872764998055.mbj@tail-f.com> <d4c06d52-6b09-692c-7ca2-7f509e1917a0@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1a50f499-d953-8d8d-995a-067c6da6aea8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:12:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d4c06d52-6b09-692c-7ca2-7f509e1917a0@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/T5Vir_6nFdv4TA2u7QX4i_b6DZU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended>
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, 27 Sep 2017 16:12:45 -0000
We want to close on some of the NMDA document comments. I'll send a separate summary for all the issues later, possible tomorrow. In the absence of seeing any comments to the contrary, and with the change supported by the other authors, I will apply the proposed update to the <intended> description below. This should resolve two issues: https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/9 - Title: "Make it clear that validation of intended includes default values" https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/3 - Title: "Enhance description of intended datastore" Thanks, Rob > > 3) I think that it would be useful to further refine my previous > proposed text for intended, particularly rewriting the text on > validation. This should hopefully also address Balazs' concern about > default values be included in validation. > > <Old> > > 4.4. The Intended Configuration Datastore (<intended>) > > The intended configuration datastore (<intended>) is a read-only > configuration datastore. It is tightly coupled to <running>. When > data is written to <running>, the data that is to be validated is > also conceptually written to <intended>. Validation is performed on > the contents of <intended>. > > For simple implementations, <running> and <intended> are identical. > > <intended> does not persist across reboots; its relationship with > <running> makes that unnecessary. > > Currently there are no standard mechanisms defined that affect > <intended> so that it would have different contents than <running>, > but this architecture allows for such mechanisms to be defined. > > One example of such a mechanism is support for marking nodes as > inactive in <running>. Inactive nodes are not copied to <intended>, > and are thus not taken into account when validating the > configuration. > > Another example is support for templates. Templates are expanded > when copied into <intended>, and the expanded result is validated. > > </Old> > <Proposed> > > 4.1.4. The Intended Configuration Datastore (<intended>) > > The intended configuration datastore (<intended>) is a read-only > configuration datastore. It represents the configuration after all > configuration transformations to <running> are performed (e.g. > template expansion, removal of inactive configuration), and is the > configuration that the system attempts to apply. > > <intended> is tightly coupled to <running>. Whenever data is written > to <running>, then <intended> is also immediately updated by > performing all necessary transformations to the contents of <running> > and then <intended> is validated. > > <intended> may also be updated independently of <running> (e.g., if > one of the configuration transformations is changed), but <intended> > must always be a 'valid configuration data tree' as defined in > Section 8.1 of [RFC7950]. > > For simple implementations, <running> and <intended> are identical. > > The contents of <intended> is also related to the 'config true' > subset of <operational>, and hence a client can determine to what > extent the intended configuration is currently in use by checking > whether the contents of <intended> also appears in <operational>. > > <intended> does not persist across reboots; its relationship with > <running> makes that unnecessary. > > Currently there are no standard mechanisms defined that affect > <intended> so that it would have different contents than <running>, > but this architecture allows for such mechanisms to be defined. > > One example of such a mechanism is support for marking nodes as > inactive in <running>. Inactive nodes are not copied to <intended>. > A second example is support for templates, which can perform > transformations on the configuration from <running> to the > configuration written to <intended>. > > </Proposed> > > Thanks, > Rob > > >> >> >> /martin >> . >> > > . >
- [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG Last… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call:… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton