Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] with-defaults terminology conflict

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:31 -0400

I have, in previous notes, said that representing the "currently used 
mtu" as operational data would be a reasonable approach.  I can even 
live with the fact that the coupling between the configured value and 
the operational value is weak / description based.

But, every time I have suggested that, Phil (who is the most vocal 
proponent of the view that such information should not appear in the 
config), has vehemently asserted that he does not want to represent it 
as operational data.

I readily admit that there are multiple ways to solve the problem.
What I am not prepared to admit is that "read the documentation and 
attempt to recreate the document device calculation in the manager" is 
even vaguely appropriate as a solution.
Nor am I prepared to agree that there is not a problem.

Yours,
Joel

PS: I copied netmod, because I thought that was where this was being 
discussed for the most part.  It clearly crosses the boundaries between 
the two.

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 06:18:57PM +0200, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 
>> For other values, I can not see any justification for not representing 
>> them.  They need to be accessible to the management system.
> 
> Accessible yes, but they are not part of the configuration.
> 
>> The length issue seems to turn on who is processing this
>> information.  Machinery can deal with the length we are discussing.
> 
> Making operational state by default is broken. It is wrong in most
> cases to treat the MTU as config since what you want is likely the
> value the kernel figured out for the piece of hardware you are
> currently using. We are caught in circles.
> 
> /js
>