Re: [netmod] Must offline-validation of <running> alone be valid?

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:31 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 8, 2021, at 5:50 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Andy - about use cases.  Here is a problem we're trying to address:
>>
>>
>>
>> There are at least several major router implementations that have this
>> concept of "hidden config" (i.e. list entries that can be referenced in a
>> leafref by explicit user config, but those list entries are not returned in
>> a <get-config>).
>>
>
> Clearly not in compliance with RFC 7950.
>
>
> Andy, can you please point to the part in RFC 7950 that says offline
> validation must be supported?   I believe that this "common understanding”
> actually lacks a basis, and an equally-valid interoperation is that the
> <running> must be valid *on the server* vis-a-vis it actually validating
> <intended>.
>
>
I think sec. 6.4 and sec. 8 are clear enough how validation of the
<running> datastore is done.
Leafrefs in <running> are not allowed to point to a node outside of
<running>.

Andy


>
> IMO the "enable flag" approach to the general problem, presented by Kent a
> couple years ago,
> is a much simpler and better solution than a new <system> datastore.
> The full set of nodes is in <running>.
> A generalized "enable" mechanism causes the resource to be used or not,
> where it shows up in <intended> and <operational> if enabled=true.
>
> IMO this fits the original intent of NMDA and does so in a way that
> requires
> the least disruption to current compliant implementations.
>
>
> You have the memory of an elephant  ;)
>
> That I-D (conditional-enablement [1]) was mostly about how to support
> JUNOS’s “inactive” annotation.  I replaced the negative “inactive” with
> positive “enabled” for readability.  That draft also shined a light on how
> the “enabled” annotation could be used in firewall pollination for, e.g.,
> 9am-5pm ACL rules.
>
> I guess I’m unclear about the relation to the system-defined config - can
> you say some more?
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kwatsen-conditional-enablement-00
>
>
> K.
>
>
>
>