GitHub issue #4 has been raised to track the predominant concern raised in this thread:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/4 Thanks again Rob! Kent From: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:12 PM To: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de<mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>>, "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG coordination feedback on draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 [As a contributor] > This raises the issue "how does the client know that a missing applied > value means there is no applied value vs. the server does not know > and does not support reporting the applied value for a particular leaf?" > > None of the solutions allow a client to know that. draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-reqs Sections 5.2 and 6.1. define an Applied Configuration capability so the client to tell, doesn't this count? > Andy Kent
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
