These GitHub issues were opened per this thread: - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/1 - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/2 - https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/3
Thank you Rob! Kent On 9/11/15, 9:28 AM, "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > > >On 9/11/2015 8:09 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >>>> 3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management >>>> >> systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management >>>> >> systems >>>> >> >>>> >> a. For asynchronous systems, the ability to request a protocol >>>> >> operation to not return (i.e. block) until the intended >>>> >> configuration has been fully synchronized. >>> > I'm not sure why 3 (a) is a requirement, or its unclear to me where >>>this is specified in the openconfig-netmod-opstate draft. >> Anees/Rob, can you guys please add some color to the above >>descriptions to help clarify things for Robert? >I see (3) but not (3.a) in >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01#section-4.2 >so am unsure how 3.a made it on the list. > >also, I don't object to 3.a if *users* say they need it. > >Lou > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >netmod@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
