Re: [netmod] system DS polluting intended and operational

["Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Please see inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:19 PM
> To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] system DS polluting intended and operational
> 
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 05:51:48PM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
> > I wonder if having all the system config appear in intended and operational
> may be annoying. We didn't want to pollute running with 100s/1000s of lines
> of unreferenced system config. So maybe putting all that in intended &
> operational is also ugly ?
> >
> 
> The applied config, part of operational, is the config that is
> actually used by the device. RFC 8342 has the details.

[>>JTS: ] RFC 8342 (rightly) leaves a lot of grey zone around what is considered used/active and what an implementation is allowed to return in <operational>.  But I'm also concerned about polluting intended.

> 
> > We should have *some* way that a client can retrieve system
> configuration though.
> >
> > Some potential options (without system flowing 100% of its contents into
> intended):
> > a) <system> DS that can be read (but doesn't flow into intended or
> operational)
> > b) a "with-system" extension (like "with-defaults"). Returns a merge of
> running+system (or candidate+system, or intended+system).
> 
> You want to rewrite RFC 8342?

[>>JTS: ] I think we're already discussing potential changes to "system" config in this draft (i.e. having system config flow into intended instead of operational). Maybe we won't do that in the end, but while we're discussing it I wanted to raise other options for consideration to avoid the potential pollution.

> 
> > Maybe we'd also want (or maybe want instead) is a way to see
> *referenced* system config (either on its own, or merged with another DS).
> 
> The 'referenced system config' has to be in running since otherwise it
> can't be referenced.

[>>JTS: ] That's a big part of the debate going on around this draft. I'm leaning the same way as you on this point (for system config), but there doesn't seem to be agreement in the working group. Having the referenced config (at least the list key) explicitly configured by the user in running is a solution I like for this system config problem, but I don't see how we'll handle config templates if running must be valid.  (we should continue that debate on the thread "Must offline-validation of <running> alone be valid?" though).

> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>