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

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 12 September 2017 10:49 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 F1BBB1333D2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:49:02 -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 zdDw1XQpRZsu for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 074001333AC for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7772; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505213341; x=1506422941; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IuryX5RCc09Apu9BpG3xEL8VtpVdvmgdG/pHXVvQJgI=; b=igOh+Xwc0Q3tAVUaQKq902hQVBxQ3y8KrPDJ+qApzNr+BAH/8Qz44Ljk 8Np5sp122DW4tS+pP9Sn1b7h3vbZadE5HdEvoqMqMmFIZlhUyN5w6TFLE jG8V3A5pwZH/b8gl5Oq9pz4/ZM9AhWghGClMHsCcHm9HLviJHimTbSjF2 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKBAADu7dZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhS0ng3eLFZB3K5YpghIKhT4ChHYWAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQM?= =?us-ascii?q?BIxU2BAcQCw4KAgIjAwICRhEGAQwGAgEBiiUIqwGCJ4syAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEhgQ6CHYNSgg4LgWWBDYgKgmEFoHWUUoIThWiDWiSGeY1Yh1WBOSYKJ4E?= =?us-ascii?q?NMiEIHBVKhRgcgWg/NodOK4IUAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,382,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="654556579"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2017 10:48:58 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8CAmwe7021097; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:48:58 GMT
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, kwatsen@juniper.net
Cc: lberger@labn.net, netmod@ietf.org
References: <511deba5-34ca-dde2-6637-ceaf4c4af125@labn.net> <10476e00-0169-4258-449f-22cc7ca978a8@cisco.com> <E1A72908-D7D6-4FDF-BF77-8E6B0D2CFB4B@juniper.net> <20170911.193124.713501339751798550.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b3a11fe5-5f28-b961-8590-f560a38160b1@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:48:58 +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: <20170911.193124.713501339751798550.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/oSJkBvPX9mAT2i1yhSFMJ68Oni4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:49:03 -0000


On 11/09/2017 18:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
>> As an author, I believe the draft is ready for publication.
>>
>> Regarding Robert's editorial suggestions:
>>
>> 1) how moving "all" like this?  (i.e., must have same modules,
>> deviations, etc.)
>> -   datastores that all share exactly the same schema, allowing data to be
>> -   copied
>> + datastores that share exactly the same schema, allowing all data to
>> be copied
>
> Or just remove "all".
I also have a slight preference for just removing "all", but am also OK 
if it moves.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>> 2) better, but I think we should expand "It" in the beginning of the
>> 2nd paragraph
>> to "The intended configuration datastore".  Also, how about this for
>> the 3rd
>> paragraph instead?  (fixes a couple plurality issues and one
>> transition issue):
>>
>>     The contents of <intended> are related to the 'config true'
>>     subset of <operational>, such that a client can determine to what
>>     extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking
>>     whether the contents of <intended> also appear in <operational>.
> Ok.
>
>> 3) I'm okay with this.
> I agree that the proposed TOC changes are better.
>
>> 4) This is better.
> Agreed.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/17, 11:22 AM, "Robert Wilton"
>> <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As one of the authors, I would like to see a few minor editorial
>> updates, described below.  Otherwise I believe that the document is
>> ready for publication.
>>
>> Proposed changes:
>>
>> 1. I think that the document could further emphasis that the schema
>> for all the conventional datastores must be the same.
>>
>> Old:
>>
>> 4.5.  Conventional Configuration Datastores
>>
>>     The conventional configuration datastores are a set of configuration
>>     datastores that share a common schema, allowing data to be copied
>>     between them.  The term is meant as a generic umbrella description of
>>     these datastores.  The set of datastores include:
>>
>> New:
>>
>> 4.5.  Conventional Configuration Datastores
>>
>>     The conventional configuration datastores are a set of configuration
>>     datastores that all share exactly the same schema, allowing data to be
>>     copied
>>     between them.  The term is meant as a generic umbrella description of
>>     these datastores.  The set of datastores include:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. I think that the description of the intended datastore could be
>> expanded to give a bit more clarity.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>     ...
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> 4.4.  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, inactive configuration removal), and is the
>>     configuration that the system attempts to apply.
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     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 applied by checking
>>     whether the contents of <intended> also appears in <operational>.
>>
>>     <intended> does not persist across reboots; its relationship with
>>     <running> makes that unnecessary.
>>
>>     ...
>>
>> 3. I think that it may aid readability if the section on conventional
>> configuration datastores was moved above the description of the
>> individual conventional configuration datastores, which could then be
>> intended one level.  Best illustrated via the change to the table of
>> contents.
>>
>> E.g. current TOC:
>>
>>     4.  Architectural Model of Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
>>       4.1.  The Startup Configuration Datastore (<startup>) . . . . .   9
>>       4.2.  The Candidate Configuration Datastore (<candidate>) . . .  10
>>       4.3.  The Running Configuration Datastore (<running>) . . . . .  10
>>       4.4.  The Intended Configuration Datastore (<intended>) . . . .  10
>>       4.5.  Conventional Configuration Datastores . . . . . . . . . .  11
>>       4.6.  Dynamic Configuration Datastores  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
>>       4.7.  The Operational State Datastore (<operational>) . . . . .  11
>>         4.7.1.  Remnant Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
>>         4.7.2.  Missing Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>>         4.7.3.  System-controlled Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>>         4.7.4.  Origin Metadata Annotation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>>
>> Proposed TOC:
>>
>>     4.  Architectural Model of Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
>>       4.1.  Conventional Configuration Datastores . . . . . . . . . .   9
>>         4.1.1.  The Startup Configuration Datastore (<startup>) . . .  10
>>         4.1.2.  The Candidate Configuration Datastore (<candidate>) .  10
>>         4.1.3.  The Running Configuration Datastore (<running>) . . .  10
>>         4.1.4.  The Intended Configuration Datastore (<intended>) . .  11
>>       4.2.  Dynamic Configuration Datastores  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
>>       4.3.  The Operational State Datastore (<operational>) . . . . .  12
>>         4.3.1.  Remnant Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>>         4.3.2.  Missing Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>>         4.3.3.  System-controlled Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
>>         4.3.4.  Origin Metadata Annotation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
>>
>> 4. Finally, I noticed one reference that could be improved, by
>> changing it from "(described below)" to a proper section reference:
>>
>> 647,648c644,645
>> < circumstances, e.g., an abnormal value is 'in use', or due to
>> remnant
>> <    configuration (described below).  Note, that deviations are still
>> ---
>>>     circumstances, e.g., an abnormal value is "in use", or due to remnant
>>>     configuration (see Section 4.7.1).  Note, that deviations are still
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2017 22:02, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
> .
>