On 3/29/17 16:57, Phil Shafer wrote: > Joe Clarke writes: >> Additionally, if the revised DS draft progresses (and it seems like it >> will), do >> we need <write-data> at all? Yes, we need to sort out validation, but why >> can't >> we use <edit-config> (revised DS already gives us <get-data>). > > <edit-config> is defined in the base NETCONF spec, and we're trying > to avoid reving that. Instead we're proposing edits to dynamic > datastores (like i2rs-defined ones) will be performed using a new > <edit-data> operation (patterned after <edit-config>, named to > mirror <get-data>). This operation will take an argument to indicate > the target datastore.
Thanks, Phil. I had to keep popping in and out of netmod and netconf, so I missed this discussion. This does make sense. > > Following the outcome of Tuesday NETCONF meeting, we'll be preparing > individual drafts for NETCONF and RESTCONF based on the "impact to > ..." sections that are currently in the datastore draft. (Those > sections will be removed from the datastore draft.) > > And based on Sue's comments, we'll be adding more details re: dynamic > datastores to the datastore draft. Thanks. I still think it would be worth revising or spinning down the i2rs drafts as they have diverged from the revised DS draft, and this is adding to at least my confusion. Joe > > Thanks, > Phil > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
