Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09.txt> (Network Management Datastore Architecture) to Proposed Standard two

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:08:24PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> "tom p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Much of this I-D is about the idea that network management data objects
> > can often take two different values.  The I-D always refers to this as
> > being two values but is that a limit that this architecture imposes; or
> > can it be more?
> 
> The I-D talks about two instantiations in the Objectives section, when
> the original "config vs oper values" problem is explained, and how
> NMDA solves the problem.
> 
> But the archtecture allows for any number of instantiations; it all
> depends on which datastores a particular server implements.  For
> example, a config node might have one value in <candidate>, a
> different in <running> and yet a different value in <startup>.  This
> is not new to this document.
>

Right. Lets see there "two" is used:

- 1st paragraph in 2. Objectives: I think the text is clear since it
  talks about a concrete example of a configured value and an
  operationally used value.

- 2nd paragraph in 2. Objectives: This text talks about two separate
  branches in the old models, this should be fine.

- 4th paragraph in 2. Objectives: I think this is potentially
  causing the confusion. It says:

    With the revised architectural model of datastores defined in this
    document, the data objects are defined only once in the YANG schema
    but independent instantiations can appear in two different
    datastores, one for configured values and one for operational state
    values.

  Perhaps a better wording would be this:

    With the revised architectural model of datastores defined in this
    document, the data objects are defined only once in the YANG
    schema but independent instantiations can appear in different
    datastores, e.g., for a configured value and one for an
    operationally used value.

  This e.g. then kind of continues the example the section started
  with. Would this change have avoided the question?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]