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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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.

/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/>