Re: [netmod] Wrapping up system-creatable

[Andy Bierman <andy at netconfcentral.com>]

David Partain wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The various documents have been updated in advance of the upcoming IETF, and, 
> unless I'm mistaken, we seem to have one sticky issue left to clear up, and 
> that is what to do about system-creatable.
> 
> Last week, Martin published a set of possible choices of what we could do.
> 
> It would be helpful if everyone who cares would reply to this message telling 
> me / the group what you think the right answer is.
> 
> The choices are below.  If you think there are other possible choices, please 
> say so.  I've renumbered just to try to make it clearer what you're "voting" 
> for.
> 
> 1. Do nothing in the draft and let implementations and data models figure out
> how/if/when/why the server can modify the configuration data.
> 
> 2. Do nothing but write in the document that we _know_ it's an issue but we're 
> still not doing anything.
> 

(2) is the best outcome we can achieve, since there is
no consensus on most of the important s-c details.
Nor is there consensus that s-c is sufficient in
scope or utility.

I don't think we understand the problem well enough
to write anything really useful in the draft.

> 3. Add text that says that the server MUST NOT modify config data unless 
> dictated by the data model (through description clauses or future 
> extensions).

This is could be added to the Usage Guidelines I-D,
so it would apply to modules in drafts.

In general the data model is the only source for
making decisions what the server is allowed to
do for that section of the conceptual database.
The implementor MUST NOT do stuff that is not
specified in the data model.


> 
> 4. Add text that says that the server is free to modify config data in any way 
> it wants, unless constrained by the data model (through description clauses 
> or future extensions).
> 
> 5.  Add formal statements (e.g. the current s-c) to control how the server can 
> modfiy config.
> 
> Please let your voice be heard as soon as possible.  Please try to choose 
> one...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> David


Andy