[netmod] The "resolve-system" parameter in the new "with-system" I-D

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Fri, 18 February 2022 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <0100017f0e3f6522-2a51f597-0638-4a4c-a0c7-6b0e06f5a8c6-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 DC2D13A1360; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:11:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 ZR8Qq5A5pH8i; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a48-92.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-92.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A969A3A13B7; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:11:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1645211510; h=From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Message-Id:Date:Cc:To:Feedback-ID; bh=pRW1atVYAshk7eI3rDc9nx2glkIyBZDFZW0Vl9RFvIU=; b=hMdJhVgY0voZ4I4Kov8K0TK5IGB+QZOfSpr+iQ1jC89kJWgQMKikJqn8p++Hww5z RsomNpKMMWfV2GwT3erWKoNTAznRrkV8fBi58rFuOXwJ8XParcCD1XLpJqSKSYQG1tf QRYFPJk88kYEECIaZ0Y2+yvq8UKv79ky8ObB4Nt4=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
Message-ID: <0100017f0e3f6522-2a51f597-0638-4a4c-a0c7-6b0e06f5a8c6-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:11:50 +0000
Cc: draft-ma-netmod-with-system@ietf.org
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2022.02.18-54.240.48.92
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pjf8Qy0X6OLRhsb2T9hjBBbdR5w>
Subject: [netmod] The "resolve-system" parameter in the new "with-system" I-D
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:11:56 -0000

[As a contributor]

This message regards the value of the "resolve-system” parameter defined in the latest “with-system” draft.

The "resolve-system” parameter is defined in its own optional-to-implement module.  The question is if the WG believes the parameter is valuable or if the module should be removed from the draft before adoption call?

The "resolve-system” parameter is a convenience function, enabling clients to NOT have “manually” copy/paste referenced system-defined nodes into <running>.  Instead, by including this parameter in <edit-config>, <commit>, or equivalents, the client requests the server to itself copy/paste the missing system nodes into <running>. 

It is true that this work began with a goal of never having to copy/paste system-defined nodes into <running>.   The concern wasn’t about *how* the referenced system-defined nodes came to be in <running>, but *if* they needed to be in <running> at all.   But now that the current draft says referenced system-nodes MUST be in <running>, the only remaining question regards *how* they came to be in <running>.  

Yes, there is convenience in using the “resolve-system” parameter, but there is also some implementation complexity.   Ultimately, the question is, is the convenience worth the complexity?   Thoughts?

Thanks,
Kent