----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:36 PM
> 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?
Juergen
Yes, I would find that clearer. Perhaps even better
OLD
e.g., for a configured value and one for an
operationally used value.
NEW
e.g., one for a configured value and one (another?) for an
operationally used value.
I would say 'one' and 'another' but 'one' and 'one' would be clear
enough.
Tom Petch
> /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/>