Re: [netmod] comments on revised-datastores-00

Martin: 

Thank you.  As usual, your answer is clear and enables me to work on the
next steps of coding and standardization.   

I'd love to talk off-list on how I've merged to I2RS RIB ephemeral control
protocol data store and Netconf intended datastore in a prototype in the
CONFD code. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:11 PM
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; lhotka@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on revised-datastores-00

Hi,

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> Juergen and Lada: 
> 
> #2 - is interesting to me.  Is dynamic configuration protocol = I2RS? 
> Or control-plane protocols = I2RS?

Details tbd, but this architecture allows for a new kind of datastore
("control-plane datastore") which could be defined for i2rs.

> On #5 - how do you merge I2RS RIB static routes  + 
> routing-configuration rib routes?

That is not covered by this architecture.  It has to be defined in i2rs.

> Can you see the difference in the applied configuration? 

You can see the result in the applied configuration, and you can see the
statically configured routes in <intended> and the i2rs-defined routes in
the-new-i2rs-datastore.

/martin

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sue
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen 
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:42 AM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] comments on revised-datastores-00
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:23:04AM +0900, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've read the revised-datastores-00 document, in general I like it, 
> > here are my initial comments and questions:
> > 
> > 1. Even if <intended> is valid, it can still be in conflict with the
> >    actual content of <applied> that may come from e.g. dynamic
> >    configuration protocols. How are such cases supposed to be resolved?
> 
> Yes. The whole idea is to expose these potential differences instead 
> of hiding them behind a curtain.
> 
> > 2. What is the distinction between dynamic configuration protocols and
> >    control-plane protocols?
> 
> Good question. I believe this to be at the end implementation specific.
> The question I think really is whether a control-plane protocol 
> interacts with the configuration management component or not.
> 
> > 3. Shared <candidate> has known problems. Maybe it's time to part with
> >    it in this new datastore model?
> 
> This clearly was not the focus of this work.
> 
> > 4. Templates are briefly mentioned in several places, it would be useful
> >    to explain this concept in more detail.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > 5. Is it necessary that "<operational-state> datastore contains all
> >    configuration data actually used by the system"? For example, static
> >    routes should appear in RIBs, so having them separately in
operational
> >    state seems redundant.
> 
> I do not understand your question. Is the RIB exposed or not? Anyway, 
> we need a general model and not a model for specific aspects such as
routing.
> Yes, there can be redundancy but there can also be semantic 
> differences. The <operational-state> datastore tells me what is 
> actually used (regardless of what has happened with the statically 
> configured values). In other words, if I want to debug what my box is 
> actually doing, looking at the <operational-state> datastore is probably a
good idea.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 