Re: [netmod] system configuration sync mechanism

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:49 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> It was a different email I think proposing extensions instead of a
> datastore.
>
>
> This email:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SHRPSxHIDxsfF2t0GXXiyFHOnGw/
>
>

What is the purpose of system-configuration

Use-case A)    The system sets some values because it knows what they shall
be. In this case the client must not be allowed to modify these values. We
want to check configuration data against these values.  E.g., AcmeHomeRouter
has 5 interfaces called eth0, eth1, eth,2, eth3 and WAN. The client should
not try to add or remove interfaces to this set.

Use-case B)    The system provides initial values for something that can be
configured in many ways. In this case the client is free to modify the
system-defined values. E.g., an initial set of NACM rules is provided. In
this case any constraints based on the system data are very weak, as the
user can change the system-data itself.

It is possible to support these use-cases with access-control conventions.

I re-read RFC 8808 and 8342 again.
IMO this draft overlaps the factory-default datastore.
Unfortunately, RFC 8808 does not document NMDA, Appendix A3 details
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8342#appendix-A.3

It does not say if <factory-default> datastore feeds into <running> or into
<intended>.
It is not clear how <system> would interact with other datastores.
It is not clear why it is even needed since <factory-default> contains only
system settings.


K.
>
>
Andy