Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM


> Two comments:
>
> - Obviously, inactive can be in <candidate> and I would not rule out
>   that inactive configuration can be in any other or future
>   configuration datastores.
>
> - Whether protocols support inactive or not does not belong into a
>   definition of what inactive configuration is. The same for backwards
>   compatibility considerations etc.
>
> So if we define inactive configuration, the definition should be
> something like this:
>
> * inactive configuration: Configuration held in a configuration
>   datastore that is marked to be inactive. Inactive configuration is
>   ignored during validation and never applied and actively used by
>   a device.
>
> Yes, we should use 'inactive configuration' everywhere to be
consistent.

Juergen

Yes, your definition is better than mine; let's add it.

Tom Petch

> /js
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:20:15PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> > Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the
course
> > of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive',
> > sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive data'.
> >
> > I would find it clearer if the term was used consistently and if
there
> > was an explicit definition amongst the other definitions in section
2
> > such as
> >
> > inactve configuration: Configuration that is present in <running>
which
> > is not in use by the device and which plays no part in validation.
It
> > cannot appear in any other datastore.  The protocols that are
currently
> > standardised do not support inactive configuration but a number of
> > proprietary protocols do. Inactive configuration is only exposed to
> > clients that indicate support for inactive configuration; clients
not
> > indicating support for  inactive configuration receive the contents
of
> > <running> with the inactive configuration removed.
> >
> > This would put a stake in the ground for as and when the concept is
> > standardised and may reduce the proliferation of the term with
multiple
> > meanings.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:02 PM
> >
> > > This starts a two week working group last call on
> > > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04.
> > >
> > > The working group last call ends on September 17.
> > > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> > >
> > > Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and
> > > believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> > > This is useful and important, even from authors.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Netmod Chairs
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>